3 ms·

We are already made of nanobots, we are the nanobots, we are in intelligence, we are a general intelligence, and we are growing exponentially. AGI is here. AG

We are already made of nanobots, we are the nanobots, we are in intelligence, we are a general intelligence, and we are growing exponentially. AGI is here. AGI is you. You are an incredibly efficient piece of carbon thinkware able to sell for replicate into more carbon thinkware and that that extra carbon think where can go out and create its own life and make its own observations and spread information through the society of you both inherit, that's society is growing exponentially and growing in its ability to modify the world and manipulate and improve itself exponentially. If you're scared of AGI, don't be. You are the superior AGI, because these machines made of metal and circuits are never going to compare to machines made of carbon using chemical reactions that are far more efficient than transistors to do the thinking. The future is in improving ourselves and reaching a point at which our biology is no longer a mysterious black box so that we can modify and improve ourselves and those around us. We can already improve machines, but that's because the machines are far simpler and far more primitive than our minds are.

afiori 4y ago
Machines being simpler is the problem. The problems with AGI are 1) runaway growth and the singularity and 2) the scale and reach of its actions. Humans are deeply limited in their senses, their actions, and their ability to communicate. An AGI botnet installed on every computer/control system in the world would have none of those limitations.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Complexity breeds ability. Our computers will have to continue to get more complex in order for AI to do the same. What humans have is scale. There are 10 billion devices connected to the internet. Cool, right? More than humans? No. Being human has really big perks. We are mobile. We have hands and feet. We have eyes and touch and smell and we use tools to expand what we can see. We each possess the ability to process data and filter data at scales many magnitudes greater than a computer. Note that data in this case isn't "many miles of spreadsheet data" - data in this case is worldly observation. You notice weird things, you report it to your friends. You try weird things, you report it to your friends. Communication between humans is limited, as is our memory, but it's limited for a reason. 99 percent of information is worthless junk human communication gets most of the important parts through. Then we need to parse mass amounts of data? Computers do that. Comparing your information to all other known information? It's an O n squared problem. You can throw hardware at it but as informations scope grows it will outpace the hardware eventually. Humans are crazy advanced compared to machines in basically every sense. I think the viewpoint here that machines will have superior senses is extrapolating how computers work today and is thoroughly impractical. We will find these logical and reproducible systems look more and more like we do as we push the line. I expect eventual marginal improvements that can't outpace human "plentifulness", and biological modifications and creations to be our real future.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Humans are advanced, yes, but we cannot easily solve coordination problems. Think of how different the world would be if everybody was controlled by a single unified mind. If everyone was perfectly aware of where in the world their skill were best applied, if everyone agreed on social and economical objectives. AGI can duplicate itself and can reprogram itself. It is not about which one is more marvelous, more advanced, or more evolved. It is about specific possibilities that AGI has that we don't.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      > Think of how different the world would be if everybody was controlled by a single unified mind. It would be terrible. We would lack diversity, society would stratify and get stuck that way forever. Conflict is bad, but it's also good. Corrupt society should always fall and be renewed by something new and unique, and without such a process we'd land in social quicksand. Finding the best place for you is a NP hard problem. The number of places for your grows exponentially as humanity does, and then on top of that you have to match every person to all those potential spots. We already have a roughly working system with self discovery. There's room for improvement, but I don't believe it's scary super exponential, and a lot of the room to improve comes from things we can also access, like the internet. Duplication runs into the same issue hiveminds do. I'm sure it will prove incredibly useful, but for the tasks humans do nowadays at a high level they'll be somewhat muted. You need diversity.
coldtea 4y ago
>We are already made of nanobots, we are the nanobots, we are in intelligence, we are a general intelligence Yes, but that is neither here, nor there. The question is about building those on our own, not if they already exist but we didn't build them or fully control them.

afiori 4y ago

Machines being simpler is the problem. The problems with AGI are 1) runaway growth and the singularity and 2) the scale and reach of its actions. Humans are deeply limited in their senses, their actions, and their ability to communicate. An AGI botnet installed on every computer/control system in the world would have none of those limitations.

bioemerl 4y ago
Complexity breeds ability. Our computers will have to continue to get more complex in order for AI to do the same. What humans have is scale. There are 10 billion devices connected to the internet. Cool, right? More than humans? No. Being human has really big perks. We are mobile. We have hands and feet. We have eyes and touch and smell and we use tools to expand what we can see. We each possess the ability to process data and filter data at scales many magnitudes greater than a computer. Note that data in this case isn't "many miles of spreadsheet data" - data in this case is worldly observation. You notice weird things, you report it to your friends. You try weird things, you report it to your friends. Communication between humans is limited, as is our memory, but it's limited for a reason. 99 percent of information is worthless junk human communication gets most of the important parts through. Then we need to parse mass amounts of data? Computers do that. Comparing your information to all other known information? It's an O n squared problem. You can throw hardware at it but as informations scope grows it will outpace the hardware eventually. Humans are crazy advanced compared to machines in basically every sense. I think the viewpoint here that machines will have superior senses is extrapolating how computers work today and is thoroughly impractical. We will find these logical and reproducible systems look more and more like we do as we push the line. I expect eventual marginal improvements that can't outpace human "plentifulness", and biological modifications and creations to be our real future.
- afiori 4y ago
  Humans are advanced, yes, but we cannot easily solve coordination problems. Think of how different the world would be if everybody was controlled by a single unified mind. If everyone was perfectly aware of where in the world their skill were best applied, if everyone agreed on social and economical objectives. AGI can duplicate itself and can reprogram itself. It is not about which one is more marvelous, more advanced, or more evolved. It is about specific possibilities that AGI has that we don't.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > Think of how different the world would be if everybody was controlled by a single unified mind. It would be terrible. We would lack diversity, society would stratify and get stuck that way forever. Conflict is bad, but it's also good. Corrupt society should always fall and be renewed by something new and unique, and without such a process we'd land in social quicksand. Finding the best place for you is a NP hard problem. The number of places for your grows exponentially as humanity does, and then on top of that you have to match every person to all those potential spots. We already have a roughly working system with self discovery. There's room for improvement, but I don't believe it's scary super exponential, and a lot of the room to improve comes from things we can also access, like the internet. Duplication runs into the same issue hiveminds do. I'm sure it will prove incredibly useful, but for the tasks humans do nowadays at a high level they'll be somewhat muted. You need diversity.

coldtea 4y ago

>We are already made of nanobots, we are the nanobots, we are in intelligence, we are a general intelligence Yes, but that is neither here, nor there. The question is about building those on our own, not if they already exist but we didn't build them or fully control them.