3 ms·

> Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept. That's not the point. We can map any multi-dimensional form of int

> Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept. That's not the point. We can map any multi-dimensional form of intelligence into a single dimension with any suitable norm. It just matters that for any dimension we can quantify intelligence in the sense that something more intelligent is imaginable. > Humans do not have general purpose minds, and neither will AIs. That does not matter at all. Then a superhuman intelligence is not "general", so what? It's still wastly more capable then any human. > Emulation of human thinking in other media will be constrained by cost. But what is the cost constraints? Human brains are constrained by mechanical considerations. How efficient could a computerized AI become? > Dimensions of intelligence are not infinite. Again, what's the argument? The number of atoms in the universe is not infinite, either (probably). > Intelligences are only one factor in progress. That's not the problem of the super AI.

mindcrime 5y ago
FWIW, I agree with your sentiments pretty much 100%. I was going to say more or less the same thing(s) but didn't feel motivated enough to do more of a "point by point" response. Glad to see somebody chipping in with very similar viewpoints.
jbay808 5y ago
Reminds me of the brilliant "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" [1]. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible. [...] The term “supersized machine” implies a machine that has crossed some threshold, which is often denoted “human-level largeness.” However, it is not clear what “human-level largeness” could refer to. Has a machine achieved human-level largeness if it has the same height as the average human? If it has the same volume? The same weight? [...] When one begins to consider these questions, one quickly concludes that there are an infinite number of metrics that could be used to measure largeness, and that people who speak of “supersized machines” do not have a particular metric in mind. Surely, then, any future machine will be larger than humans on some metrics and smaller than humans on others, just as they are today. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
davidivadavid 5y ago
Yeah, I stopped reading after making roughly the same assessment. Article is just one giant straw man. And I'm not a particularly staunch AGI proponent.

mindcrime 5y ago

FWIW, I agree with your sentiments pretty much 100%. I was going to say more or less the same thing(s) but didn't feel motivated enough to do more of a "point by point" response. Glad to see somebody chipping in with very similar viewpoints.

jbay808 5y ago

Reminds me of the brilliant "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" [1]. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible. [...] The term “supersized machine” implies a machine that has crossed some threshold, which is often denoted “human-level largeness.” However, it is not clear what “human-level largeness” could refer to. Has a machine achieved human-level largeness if it has the same height as the average human? If it has the same volume? The same weight? [...] When one begins to consider these questions, one quickly concludes that there are an infinite number of metrics that could be used to measure largeness, and that people who speak of “supersized machines” do not have a particular metric in mind. Surely, then, any future machine will be larger than humans on some metrics and smaller than humans on others, just as they are today. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

davidivadavid 5y ago

Yeah, I stopped reading after making roughly the same assessment. Article is just one giant straw man. And I'm not a particularly staunch AGI proponent.