3 ms·

Positing the existence of constraints isn't an argument that we are anywhere near the upper asymptote though. We are biological machines running on 70kg and 10

Positing the existence of constraints isn't an argument that we are anywhere near the upper asymptote though. We are biological machines running on 70kg and 100W. Why should I imagine a being which is 70 tons and 100 MW would be unable to explore a vast and varied state space of intelligence? Especially when that exploration will be goal directed and not just random mutation with fitness selection? Minds aren't special things. A mind is just a actor with a good world model. Machine minds will build massive detailed models and build themselves actuators to make effects in the world. Human level intelligence is a single example. Just like homo habilis level intelligence. There is no reason to assume artificial minds won't be massively more intelligent than us. If the only constraints you can imagine are "physics" then I'd say it's a pretty useless constraint.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
> We are biological machines running on 70kg and 100W. Why should I imagine a being which is 70 tons and 100 MW would be unable to explore a vast and varied state space of intelligence? Especially when that exploration will be goal directed and not just random mutation with fitness selection? This hinges on an assumption of fairly linear bang-for-buck scaling in a way that I don't think is justified given how graph topology works. > Minds aren't special things. A mind is just a actor with a good world model. Machine minds will build massive detailed models and build themselves actuators to make effects in the world. I'd like to see some further justification that this is the case. AI people are always going on about what will happen with certainty that I don't even think would be justified even when talking about the future of well-understood technology. > If the only constraints you can imagine are "physics" then I'd say it's a pretty useless constraint. Physics (and in some extent mathematics) are always the constraints for any seemingly exponential process. It's why Covid followed an S-shape. It's why we don't have an infinite number of rabbits despite exponential growth in low numbers. No mathematical model escapes from the fact that we live in reality.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

> We are biological machines running on 70kg and 100W. Why should I imagine a being which is 70 tons and 100 MW would be unable to explore a vast and varied state space of intelligence? Especially when that exploration will be goal directed and not just random mutation with fitness selection? This hinges on an assumption of fairly linear bang-for-buck scaling in a way that I don't think is justified given how graph topology works. > Minds aren't special things. A mind is just a actor with a good world model. Machine minds will build massive detailed models and build themselves actuators to make effects in the world. I'd like to see some further justification that this is the case. AI people are always going on about what will happen with certainty that I don't even think would be justified even when talking about the future of well-understood technology. > If the only constraints you can imagine are "physics" then I'd say it's a pretty useless constraint. Physics (and in some extent mathematics) are always the constraints for any seemingly exponential process. It's why Covid followed an S-shape. It's why we don't have an infinite number of rabbits despite exponential growth in low numbers. No mathematical model escapes from the fact that we live in reality.