> And one possibility might be that AIs could “improve themselves” to produce a single “apex intelligence” that would in a sense dominate everything else. ...th

> And one possibility might be that AIs could “improve themselves” to produce a single “apex intelligence” that would in a sense dominate everything else. ...there can never be a “best at everything” computational system. It’s a core result of the emerging field of metabiology... This is a straightforward implication of algorithmic information theory but I don't think it is an accurate representation. I'm not sure where "metabiology" fits into it. Tractability of approximating optimal ("apex") intelligence depends on significant specialization in the patterns discernible by induction. As a consequence, every pure AI will be blind to some relatively trivial patterns and relationships in the environment. However, one could use high-order induction to combine differently specialized induction, a bit like a random forest, to create robust resistance to being blind to many trivial patterns. At sufficient scale, the differences between such inductive approximations will be indistinguishable for all practical purposes. That aside, there seems to be subtle conflation between "computation" and "AI" going on here. Are we talking about "best at computation" or "best at AI"? These aren't the same thing.