3 ms·
Superseding us in what way? The machine is already better at chess and Go, clearly not at classifying images[1], but the issue here is that the author argues th
by amag 9y ago
Superseding us in what way? The machine is already better at chess and Go, clearly not at classifying images[1], but the issue here is that the author argues that there is no such thing as a general intelligence. It's all situational.
On a separate note, does it even matter? Some people argue it's important so that we can put AI safe-guards in place, to protect mankind. But either:
A) Intelligence explosion won't happen and those safe-guards are not needed.
B) Intelligence explosion happens and the supersmart AI will easily find its way around feeble safe-guards put in place by the inferior humans.
While the end results are not the same; in either case the safe-guards are useless, though Asimov sure made a good story about them.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08864 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08864
- naasking 9y agoA superintelligence can't circumvent mathematical proof, so your scenarios are not exhaustive and safeguards are not intrinsically useless. > but the issue here is that the author argues that there is no such thing as a general intelligence. It's all situational An intelligence that can adapt to changing situations seems pretty general to me.
- AstralStorm 9y agoC) Intelligence explosion happens and we'll like it and it will be non threatening. Again safeguards not needed. D) As above but it attempts to elevate is meatbags to its level.