3 ms·

That was seven decades ago, and we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. [citation needed] I guess this depends on what "close" is. For s

That was seven decades ago, and we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. [citation needed] I guess this depends on what "close" is. For something as blue sky as AGI, let me propose the following definition of "close:" X is "close" if there's over a 50% chance of it being achievable in the next 10 years if someone gave $10 billion 2019 US dollars to do it. I think this is a fair metric for "close" for a blue-sky goal which has the potential to completely change human history and society. It's comparable to landing someone on the moon, for instance. Now, let's pick the insect with the simplest behavior. Fleas and ticks are pretty stupid, as far as insects go. I think we're "close" to simulating that level of behavior. Of course, that's straw-manning, not steel-manning. If we pick the smartest insects, like jumping spiders and Tarantula Hawks, we're arguably not "close" by the above metric. Simulating a more capable insect brain of a million neurons is not an insignificant cost, and training one through simulation would multiply the computing requirements many times that. However, there are evidently systems which are capable of simulating 100 times that number of neurons: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-supercomputer-is-the-worlds-fastest-brain-mimicking-machine/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-supercomput... So I would say, we're arguably not "close." However, we're not that far off from "close."

pron 7y ago
For a comment this precise I'm surprised you've mistaken spiders for insects :) Anyway, I think that "if you gave us $10B then in ten years we have even odds of producing something as smart as a jumping spider" does make for less inspirational copy than "[we're] building artificial general intelligence with widely distributed economic benefits."
- stcredzero 7y ago
  For a comment this precise I'm surprised you've mistaken spiders for insects :) True. They're fellow arthropods, and have similar levels of nervous complexity. (BTW, are you by any chance confusing Tarantula Hawks for spiders?) does make for less inspirational copy The levels of inspiration in the copy and generalizing across the phylum Arthropoda aside, are you effectively conceding that we're close to AGI at insect levels?
  - pron 7y ago
    > are you effectively conceding that we're close to AGI at insect levels? By "we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence" I think I meant that what we have now is not close in intelligence (whatever that means) to insects. I don't know if we have a 50% of getting there in a decade, but I certainly wouldn't conclusively say that "we are not even close" to that. I mostly regret having chosen bikes rather than electric scooters for my original comment. I think that sounds funnier.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      By "we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence" I think I meant that what we have now is not close in intelligence (whatever that means) to insects. Some insects are pretty stupid! Fleas and ticks have a good and highly adapted repertoire of behaviors, but for the most part, as far as we know, most individual behaviors are fairly simple. I mostly regret having chosen bikes rather than electric scooters for my original comment. Here's where your analogy falls down. We don't even have working examples of a complete warp drive, or anything like it. On the other hand, we don't have any commercial airliner sized beamed-power electric jets, but we have smaller conceptual models of the involved devices which demonstrate the principles. This is why I'd say we're "close to close" to insect level intelligence. 10 years and $10B would get us to the flea level. I think that's "close" like airliner sized beamed-power electric jets is close.
      - pron 7y ago
        I think my point was lost because it's my pre-Primetime Emmy material.
        stcredzero 7y ago
        I think your point was lost because there's some scaling problems in the mental models used to formulate it.

pron 7y ago

For a comment this precise I'm surprised you've mistaken spiders for insects :) Anyway, I think that "if you gave us $10B then in ten years we have even odds of producing something as smart as a jumping spider" does make for less inspirational copy than "[we're] building artificial general intelligence with widely distributed economic benefits."

stcredzero 7y ago
For a comment this precise I'm surprised you've mistaken spiders for insects :) True. They're fellow arthropods, and have similar levels of nervous complexity. (BTW, are you by any chance confusing Tarantula Hawks for spiders?) does make for less inspirational copy The levels of inspiration in the copy and generalizing across the phylum Arthropoda aside, are you effectively conceding that we're close to AGI at insect levels?
- pron 7y ago
  > are you effectively conceding that we're close to AGI at insect levels? By "we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence" I think I meant that what we have now is not close in intelligence (whatever that means) to insects. I don't know if we have a 50% of getting there in a decade, but I certainly wouldn't conclusively say that "we are not even close" to that. I mostly regret having chosen bikes rather than electric scooters for my original comment. I think that sounds funnier.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    By "we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence" I think I meant that what we have now is not close in intelligence (whatever that means) to insects. Some insects are pretty stupid! Fleas and ticks have a good and highly adapted repertoire of behaviors, but for the most part, as far as we know, most individual behaviors are fairly simple. I mostly regret having chosen bikes rather than electric scooters for my original comment. Here's where your analogy falls down. We don't even have working examples of a complete warp drive, or anything like it. On the other hand, we don't have any commercial airliner sized beamed-power electric jets, but we have smaller conceptual models of the involved devices which demonstrate the principles. This is why I'd say we're "close to close" to insect level intelligence. 10 years and $10B would get us to the flea level. I think that's "close" like airliner sized beamed-power electric jets is close.
    - pron 7y ago
      I think my point was lost because it's my pre-Primetime Emmy material.
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        I think your point was lost because there's some scaling problems in the mental models used to formulate it.