3 ms·

> I think that the reason a certain group of people chooses to focus particularly on the dangers of intelligence [2] have a power fantasy about intelligence bec

> I think that the reason a certain group of people chooses to focus particularly on the dangers of intelligence [2] have a power fantasy about intelligence because they believe it to be their own extraordinary trait. I'm not sure. As a source of problem-solving power intelligence is universal in a way that charisma is not. If a problem did call for charisma, a sufficiently intelligent being would know precisely what to say and how to behave so as to mimic charisma. On the other hand charisma is useless in a variety of contexts. That's not to say intelligence is more important than charisma to 21st century humans, though I'd point out that charisma relies on intelligence to some degree; there's a limit to how charismatic someone can be with profound intellectual disability. But it's definitely true that no thoroughly acharismatic but intelligent human would be intelligent enough to mimic charisma. But we're talking about something that's more intelligent than a human, at least.

pron 5y ago
> As a source of problem-solving power intelligence is universal in a way that charisma is not. If a problem did call for charisma, a sufficiently intelligent being would know precisely what to say and how to behave so as to mimic charisma. But that defines "intelligence" as a general problem-solving power, and that is probably wrong. There are many problems that require computational power that we simply don't have (even collectively, as humanity with all its technology) despite our intelligence. For example, to predict the weather further ahead (or, say, the behaviour of society assuming we had some mathematical model), doesn't require more intelligence, but exponentially more computational resources. Moreover, I don't know what "sufficiently intelligent" means, but I certainly don't see any correlation between intelligence and charisma in humans, so that claim rests on a fictional story about what "superintelligence" is, rather than on any evidence about the intelligence we already know. > But we're talking about something that's more intelligent than a human, at least. While I certainly accept that a machine that's as intelligent as humans is possible (although I have no idea if we're 50 or 100 years away from achieving it), we don't know what "more intelligent" even means, let alone that it's possible. For all we know, a machine that's as intelligent as humans but just processes faster will be more prone to depression. Also, problem-solving has rarely been a bottleneck. What we lack is resources. For example, physicists now believe that to answer some questions in physics what we need isn't smarter physicists (assuming such a thing is possible), but resources to build ever larger particle accelerators. The belief that "more intelligence" -- if it means anything at all -- equals more power simply goes against all the evidence we have. It currently rests on nothing more than science fiction and the power fantasies expressed in science fiction, that is both written and targeted at people who wish intelligence translated to power.

pron 5y ago

> As a source of problem-solving power intelligence is universal in a way that charisma is not. If a problem did call for charisma, a sufficiently intelligent being would know precisely what to say and how to behave so as to mimic charisma. But that defines "intelligence" as a general problem-solving power, and that is probably wrong. There are many problems that require computational power that we simply don't have (even collectively, as humanity with all its technology) despite our intelligence. For example, to predict the weather further ahead (or, say, the behaviour of society assuming we had some mathematical model), doesn't require more intelligence, but exponentially more computational resources. Moreover, I don't know what "sufficiently intelligent" means, but I certainly don't see any correlation between intelligence and charisma in humans, so that claim rests on a fictional story about what "superintelligence" is, rather than on any evidence about the intelligence we already know. > But we're talking about something that's more intelligent than a human, at least. While I certainly accept that a machine that's as intelligent as humans is possible (although I have no idea if we're 50 or 100 years away from achieving it), we don't know what "more intelligent" even means, let alone that it's possible. For all we know, a machine that's as intelligent as humans but just processes faster will be more prone to depression. Also, problem-solving has rarely been a bottleneck. What we lack is resources. For example, physicists now believe that to answer some questions in physics what we need isn't smarter physicists (assuming such a thing is possible), but resources to build ever larger particle accelerators. The belief that "more intelligence" -- if it means anything at all -- equals more power simply goes against all the evidence we have. It currently rests on nothing more than science fiction and the power fantasies expressed in science fiction, that is both written and targeted at people who wish intelligence translated to power.