12 ms·
Why no one is exponentially smarter than others
- trishankkarthik 7y agoRelated to the G's essay[1] on genius. AMA! [1] http://paulgraham.com/genius.html http://paulgraham.com/genius.html
- carapace 7y agoI think you're skirting a truly fascinating question: can "higher consciousness" violate complexity bounds?
- trishankkarthik 7y agoYou tell me: why would it? And if it could, why can't we build similar machines?
- __s 7y agoConsider a very fast classical computer is simulating a universe with newtonian physics. There's no concept of quantum mechanics in this universe. You create a black box where people in this simulation can ask you questions. You also have a quantum computer. Now you can answer questions that require quantum computing which they cannot answer in their universe Next step: we're a simulation in a universe which has ways to violate complexity bounds we hit with quantum computers
- PopePompus 7y agoGosh I wish people would stop using exponentially as a synonym for "a lot".
- mettamage 7y agoOr when they mean quadratic or super linear.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- axiosgunnar 7y agoor HN's favorite, "orders of magnitude"
- gabcoh 7y agoI have not read the article but in general: The problem I have with exponential is that you can’t have an exponential difference between two data points. Exponential is a measure of growth which can’t be seen with just two data points. However orders of magnitude can accurately describe the difference between two data points. Even though it is somewhat ambiguous as well (powers of 2,10,16?) orders of magnitude makes more sense than exponential.
- axiosgunnar 7y agoI agree that it might make sense in theory, but in reality people use it extremely inflationary to make their comments sound more „science-y“. Instead of saying „X is orders of magnitude bigger than Y“, why not simply say „X is much bigger than Y“?
- insickness 7y agoIf you're discussing a type of object that has such a wide range of magnitudes, describing it as orders of magnitude difference is a good descriptor. For example, the size of stars. One star may be ten times the size of another. Another may be 100 times the size. The next may be 1000 or 10,000 times the size. You wouldn't simply say that stars have a wide range of sizes, you would say that they have orders of magnitude difference. Likewise, you could say that one star may be several orders of magnitude larger than another.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago9 is much bigger than 1. 900 is much bigger than 1 and (two) orders of magnitude greater.
- _Microft 7y agoAre non-base 10 orders of magnitude actually used anywhere? I haven't encountered neither in either physics, CS or any other field (and I'm reading whatever I can get my hands on).
- arnarbi 7y agoI had the same reaction to the headline, but in this particular article it actually means exponential. (It does make a leap from computation to intelligence though.)
- ImaCake 7y agoThey do make a point of saying that they are answering only the very specific argument of "geniuses can solve NP problems with greater efficiency than muggles". Apparently they intend to argue against muggles thinking at n^2 and geniuses thinking at n^3 in future essays.
- egdod 7y agoExponential in what?
- trishankkarthik 7y agom time steps. Read the mini-essay before commenting.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AbrahamParangi 7y agoI think a better model is not that some are exponentially smarter than others, but that some folks are operating close to the problem manifold and the rest aren't. AKA, some people are solving classes of problems in approximately the most efficient way (or relatively more efficient way) and most people are computing solutions in exponentially inferior ways.
- ImaCake 7y agoThe PhD example late in this essay is one that I have lived. I am a failed PhD student who worked for 4 years on my research with no first author publications to show for it. The professors from my old school always express surprise and confusion that I didn't succeed since I apparently have the right combination of smarts. But, to me, my failure is more down to bad luck and unfortunate circumstance than any inate ability. I would love to hear other's experiences with PhDs in the context of the essay's example.
- agumonkey 7y agoCan you share what happened?
- ImaCake 7y agoSure, the concise version is that I had an essential biology assay not work for three years running. It meant I couldn't do much to generate results. The pressure got to me and I burnt out hard. For whatever reason, the support network I had (including excellent supervisors) wasn't sufficient to overcome or work around the problem. Looking back, diversifying my work and finding short term projects likely would have innoculated me against the effects of the (biggest) problem I faced. After leaving, I have had few regrets (aside from lessons learned). I have had fun jobs, travelled, and had far less stress holding me down. Less money, sure, but more of the really important things.
- agumonkey 7y agoThanks, sometimes life puts you in weird situations.
- ISL 7y agoLuck matters more than we are often led to believe. One can generate luck, to an extent, through persistence. Leonard Mlodinow has written two books that you might find both resonant and uplifting: Feynman's Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life , and The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. Furthermore -- if you went to grad school and learned something, either about the subject or yourself, then the effort was not a failure. In the long game, it isn't about the degree nor the piece of paper.
- TheGallopedHigh 7y agoI guess for the same reason we don’t have giants walking around either, these are depending upon many random distributions of interactions that ultimately lead to a Gaussian distribution of said characteristic (height or intelligence etc) via the central limit Theorem.
- carapace 7y agoHa! Title so foolish it disproves its own premise.
- carapace 7y agoSorry! I couldn't resist. Snark omitted, here's an alternate idea of "genius": The word refers to a kind of spirit or daemon (same root as Genii). Consider the 'daimonion (literally, a "divine something")' of Socrates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)#Socrates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)#S... > In ancient Rome, the genius (plural in Latin genii) was the guiding spirit or tutelary deity of a person, family (gens), or place (genius loci). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius > Jinn, also Romanized as djinn or Anglicized as genies (with the more broad meaning of spirits or demons, depending on source), are supernatural creatures in early pre-Islamic Arabian and later Islamic mythology and theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn To be a genius is to be favored or assisted by one of more of these invisible people. I don't know if they can solve any problem in NP in polynomial time but they can apparently predict winning lottery numbers which suggests to me that there must be something interesting going on from a computational complexity POV.
- trishankkarthik 7y agoIf you're so smart, and this idea so obvious, why didn't you write about it?
- carapace 7y agoI apologize, I didn't mean to offend you, I was just making a joke. You're actually making a great point I think.
- symplee 7y agoAhh but you see, only someone who's NOT exponentially smart would fail to see it's true. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
- asimpletune 7y agoWait, the whole argument hinges on assuming P != NP correct? Which isn’t something that is proven... so by following the author’s analogy, I think left with the conclusion that there is definitely a possibility that there are people exponentially smarter than others. The other assumption was based on the determinism of the machine. As far as I understand, the brain is not a deterministic computer. We don’t really understand how our brains work at all, but they definitely don’t work in any way shape or form to how we understand a computer to work, this leaving even more possibility for interpretation to an opposite conclusion. Lastly, what about all the evidence of people who actually did accomplish exponentially more work than others? We have the benefit of the hindsight to check that real quick and, yup, I’d say 100% there are people who have done it. Elon, Jobs, Gates, etc... However, I’d agree with the author if they argued that we can’t predict who will be exponentially smarter. To do that, we would have to simulate the future or have an algorithm that can tell us, which obviously presents some contradictions. I think we all just sort have to wait and see.
- asimpletune 7y agoNot to mention that smart people usually do amazing things by just changing the rules and making the problem easier to solve (you can only make a horse go so fast or pull so much, but you can invent an automobile or train) This whole analogy I realized after thinking about it is just computer science baby babble. Fundamentally it comes down to not formally specifying the problem (not saying I can, I can’t and neither can anyone else that I’m aware of) People always want to cling to quantitative interpretations of qualitative problems, and then declare QED, despite the whole thing being predicated off a false premise to begin with (like the thing we’re discussing is an appropriate candidate for an algorithmic interpretation to begin with). And without a formal specification of the problem, we have no formal way of checking our solution.
- trishankkarthik 7y agoFirstly, have you read ImaCake[1]? Secondly, if you're so smart, why didn't you write this essay, and refute it yourself? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871
- yodsanklai 7y agoIntelligence is hard to define. I believe that some people are "exponentially" better for very specialized tasks, for instance, solving logical puzzles, or internalizing rhythm in music, but it isn't necessarily noticeable, and doesn't translate to great accomplishments.
- trishankkarthik 7y agoDefine it rigorously. We have, in terms of the amount of computation in m time steps.
- yowlingcat 7y agoNothing about that is rigorous. You still haven't convincingly demonstrated that computation works as a remotely serviceable analogy for intelligence.
- harshalizee 7y agoNo part of this is remotely rigorous. It all hinges on a few house of cards-like permises.
- hyperpallium 7y agoIf knowledge and skill is uniformly hierarchically decomposablbe, then everyone can do exponentially more work, over time. Technology's "increasing returns". But there may be thresholds, such as working memory needed, because the skill or knowledge cannot be decomposed further due to interconnections. It seems likely there exist some potential skills or knowledge that require more working memory than any human has, had or could ever have.
- yowlingcat 7y agoTo put it real lightly, it's a real stretch to make any kind of analogy between the human brain does work and the way that semiconductor based processors do work. The author's reference to Stephan Wolfram's idea of universality (developed in a prior essay) seems unfortunate: >“The key unifying idea that has allowed me to formulate the Principle of Computational Equivalence is a simple but immensely powerful one: that all processes, whether they are produced by human effort or occur spontaneously in nature, can be viewed as computations.” To borrow a metaphor from a recent HN thread about an eponymous paper called "How to recognize AI snake oil" [1], there's an "incomplete and crude but useful breakdown" on you can apply towards AI problems: genuine and useful progress in perception, imperfect but improving work in automating judgment, and fundamentally dubious attempts to predict social outcomes. Let's think about where the idea of a theory of mind based on computational complexity to determine "smartness" lands -- it's certainly not stimulus detection, it's certainly not automating judgment, but it is about predicting or modeling social outcomes. I would say that this application Wolfram's idea is fundamentally dubious. Because of this, it's hard for me to say that the premise, argument or conclusion of this essay is anything but fundamentally dubious. To at least leave a useful suggestion: this essay is missing an adequate definition and exploration of what "smart" is, why it's a facet of human nature and history, and what issues the concept causes. To the author, I'd recommend starting off by building a better foundation there before jumping to conclusions that are hard to take seriously. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577156
- trishankkarthik 7y ago1. ?? You do realize there are self-appointed geniuses who actually make this kind of arguments, right? 2. That snake-oil AI paper guy, right though he may be here, you know he's jealous of Bitcoin, right? Wrote a whole academic paper trying to justify how Bitcoin wouldn't exist w/o academia. If he was so smart, why didn't he write Bitcoin himself? 3. If this was so obvious and you're so smart, why didn't you write it yourself?
- yowlingcat 7y agoAre you seriously asking me why I didn't write something which I just told you is a worthless thing to spend time writing about? Probably because I think it's a worthless thing to spend time writing about. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Look, just because I don't buy your argument doesn't mean I buy the premise that "genius" exists the way it's constructed in society. I find that pretty fallacious too, but for different reasons. I don't think you're going to get to the core of why genius is a flawed concept with a strained analogy to computational complexity (which doesn't work) rather than by digging into historical context. I think if you focus on that, you'll probably make more progress on coming up with something interesting to say.
- aurizon 7y agoWill you say that when an alien being with an IQ of 3,234,876 appears?
- sebsito 7y agoOne doesn’t have to be exponentially smarter than others in given moment – by compounding smart ideas and decisions one can get exponentially better outcomes in time.
- Zhenya 7y ago1. Author writes and posts article on HN. 2. Commenters criticize article. 3. Author responds to criticism with " why didn't you write this yourself" over and over. Wow..
- yowlingcat 7y agoIronically, the author's defensive responses to criticism seem to be the only thing being exponentiated here.
- vendiddy 7y agoEven if the conclusion may be true, I find the argument unconvincing. There exist large differences in intelligence between some species, so it's plausible to think the same could be true within a species.