3 ms·
I'm skeptical about TS because it seems to good to be true (or too terrible), but every time I hear about it I can't help but think of this clip [1] from Neil d
by MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I'm skeptical about TS because it seems to good to be true (or too terrible), but every time I hear about it I can't help but think of this clip [1] from Neil deGrasse Tyson about how aliens would only have to be less than a percent smarter than us for us to look like peons to them. So it makes it seem inevitable that if strong AI comes to pass and AI is measures more intelligent than us, it's the end of human civilization and the begin of the era of machines. Our only hope is they decide to keep us around as pets, and are good owners. If so we'll be able to kick our feet back and enjoy eternity (should we choose to live it) debating iPhone vs. Android on Hacker News.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-uZZ7RdL5E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-uZZ7RdL5E
- bugsbunnyak 15y agoIt's an interesting thought experiment, but the 1% is an oversimplification - necessary, perhaps, in a general audience. The 1% difference he talks about is not phenotype (reasoning ability) but genotype (DNA). It's not hard to imagine a few critical changes such as more cortical folds and improved myelination leading to most of the phenotypic cognitive difference. These could be controlled in some key fractions of a % of the genome. While it works as a metaphor, it's flawed as a general metric. A species in which Hawking-level ability is - if not average - at least commonplace, would require the average IQ to be 2-3 standard deviations higher (relatively) on the human scale. IQ being, itself, a rather flawed metric of course :)