3 ms·

I fully agree, and I don't see why you think I'm implying that there will be "magic" levels of technology, or that something can be "infinitely intelligent". A

by jey 18y ago

I fully agree, and I don't see why you think I'm implying that there will be "magic" levels of technology, or that something can be "infinitely intelligent". All I'm saying is that there's still a lot of room for improvement, and AI will be a hugely beneficial tool toward that end.

Retric 18y ago
I was more talking about the "Event Horizon" from your link. You can look at the limits on what can be designed without the ability to design it yourself. We already use computers to look though each variation in boat hulls to find the "best" design. Adding 2x more processing power is useful but there are rapid diminishing returns. In the same way "Intelligence Explosion" assumes x IQ would let you build an X * n level of IQ but it's more reasonable to expect that at some point x IQ let's you build an x + (n / x) IQ. In the US we talk about what level of battery technology will finally let EV's take off, but adding an electric rail to all roads is the limit on how useful battery technology would ever get. AKA you endup removing the limit how much energy you can move from the power plant to car but that does not help you generate energy. Edit: I still think AI would be useful but I don't think it's going to change the world as much as people might think. It's like the internet it's new and useful but it's not all that much better than POTS + library + a good local collage.
- jey 18y ago
  That blog post I referenced is making the point that these three schools of thought are mutually incompatible. I agree that the "Event Horizon" idea is not making any interesting claims, although it's a good intuition pump. I think the "Intelligence Explosion" idea is worth investigating further. Also, none of the arguments in that blog post are arguing that there will be unbounded/infinite growth.

3 ms·

I fully agree, and I don't see why you think I'm implying that there will be "magic" levels of technology, or that something can be "infinitely intelligent". A

by jey 18y ago

Retric 18y ago
I was more talking about the "Event Horizon" from your link. You can look at the limits on what can be designed without the ability to design it yourself. We already use computers to look though each variation in boat hulls to find the "best" design. Adding 2x more processing power is useful but there are rapid diminishing returns. In the same way "Intelligence Explosion" assumes x IQ would let you build an X * n level of IQ but it's more reasonable to expect that at some point x IQ let's you build an x + (n / x) IQ. In the US we talk about what level of battery technology will finally let EV's take off, but adding an electric rail to all roads is the limit on how useful battery technology would ever get. AKA you endup removing the limit how much energy you can move from the power plant to car but that does not help you generate energy. Edit: I still think AI would be useful but I don't think it's going to change the world as much as people might think. It's like the internet it's new and useful but it's not all that much better than POTS + library + a good local collage.
- jey 18y ago
  That blog post I referenced is making the point that these three schools of thought are mutually incompatible. I agree that the "Event Horizon" idea is not making any interesting claims, although it's a good intuition pump. I think the "Intelligence Explosion" idea is worth investigating further. Also, none of the arguments in that blog post are arguing that there will be unbounded/infinite growth.