4 ms·

> Where I get hung up on with this is how the AGI knows what a more sophisticated AGI would look like without being at least as sophisticated I'm not sure what

> Where I get hung up on with this is how the AGI knows what a more sophisticated AGI would look like without being at least as sophisticated I'm not sure what's difficult about this. Are we not able to test what humans can run the fastest without being able to run just as fast? We can equally test which humans are the best spellers, or the best chess players, or the best problem solvers.

asdff 4y ago
We can test these things that we cannot ourselves do, only because we are able to define them and comprehend the definitions. We define a runner as fast when they run a fixed distance in a certain time. Even though we can't run as fast, the understanding of the rules at play are within what we can understand. OTOH when you move past these examples into more abstract ideas of arbitrary rules defining arbitrary tasks, A basic AGI might not be able to even comprehend the full set of rules that define the expected tasks of a much more complicated AGI, much like how it wouldn't do you any good trying to explain the rules of baseball to an ant.
- google234123 4y ago
  Yet we invent physics that wasn’t comprehended before it was discovered… not sure what your hangup is. We wouldnt stop trying to improve the AGI when it’s at the level of an ant.
- naasking 4y ago
  No person or AI needs to actually understand how an AGI actually works, they just need observable behaviours indicative of intelligence. That's what we already do with image recognition, language translation tasks, and more. Once we move to more general forms of intelligence, like math and other forms of problem solving, then you apply more general tests. For instance, if we had an Einstein AI v1.0 that could infer General Relativity using X0 bits of information in time T0, and Einstein AI v2.0 managed to infer GR using X1 << X0 bits of information and/or could infer it in time T1 << T0, then v2.0 is clearly superior to v1.0. I agree that sometimes the parameters for such tests aren't always clear at first, but this has always been the case in science, which is we we iterate and progressively refine our tests as we learn. Any true AGI must be capable of such abductive and inductive reasoning to qualify as a general intelligence.

asdff 4y ago

We can test these things that we cannot ourselves do, only because we are able to define them and comprehend the definitions. We define a runner as fast when they run a fixed distance in a certain time. Even though we can't run as fast, the understanding of the rules at play are within what we can understand. OTOH when you move past these examples into more abstract ideas of arbitrary rules defining arbitrary tasks, A basic AGI might not be able to even comprehend the full set of rules that define the expected tasks of a much more complicated AGI, much like how it wouldn't do you any good trying to explain the rules of baseball to an ant.

google234123 4y ago
Yet we invent physics that wasn’t comprehended before it was discovered… not sure what your hangup is. We wouldnt stop trying to improve the AGI when it’s at the level of an ant.
naasking 4y ago
No person or AI needs to actually understand how an AGI actually works, they just need observable behaviours indicative of intelligence. That's what we already do with image recognition, language translation tasks, and more. Once we move to more general forms of intelligence, like math and other forms of problem solving, then you apply more general tests. For instance, if we had an Einstein AI v1.0 that could infer General Relativity using X0 bits of information in time T0, and Einstein AI v2.0 managed to infer GR using X1 << X0 bits of information and/or could infer it in time T1 << T0, then v2.0 is clearly superior to v1.0. I agree that sometimes the parameters for such tests aren't always clear at first, but this has always been the case in science, which is we we iterate and progressively refine our tests as we learn. Any true AGI must be capable of such abductive and inductive reasoning to qualify as a general intelligence.