5 ms·
Keeping in mind, this holds true in a runaway fashion if the only bottleneck to more intelligence is further intelligence. I suspect physical limitations simil
by omneity 3y ago
Keeping in mind, this holds true in a runaway fashion if the only bottleneck to more intelligence is further intelligence.
I suspect physical limitations similar to how many runaway processes in the universe are more logistical than exponential in nature.
- moffkalast 3y agoLogistics tend to be improvable with more inteligence though, no? There is precedence for superhuman inteligence if you look at the best historical polymaths, and that's just what one can do with 20 W of energy. We're probably nowhere close to the universal inteligence cap in terms of physical limitations, if there even is such a thing.
- vasco 3y agoSure but then you need to manually do the back and forward whenever you hit a new bottleneck. At some point the intelligence might need to figure out better power sources and deliver to feed bigger clusters of compute. Those clusters need to physically be deployed somewhere in the real world also, etc.
- Teever 3y agoWould you ever know if a robotic intelligence was burrowed underground quietly powering itself from the heat gradients and slowly turning rock and sand into more machine?
- prvc 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
- moffkalast 3y agoAh yeah that makes more sense. I took it as the supply chain meaning of the word logistics, as in the practical limits of producing more of something. Fittingly though, management logistics should also follow the logistic function.
- api 3y agoThe ultimate bottleneck is information a.k.a. training data. Nothing can learn with nothing to learn.
- senseiV 3y agoNope Actually, networks like alpha zero learned with nothing. If only we could get that to training data
- api 3y agoThey didn't learn with nothing. They learned with a game of Go to play. If they'd never "seen" the game of Go there's no way they could have learned to play it. Data can be either static in the form of examples or dynamic in the form of an interactive game or world. Humans primarily learn through dynamic interaction with the world in our early years, then switch to learning more from static information as we enter schools and the work place. One open question is how far you can go in terms of evolving intelligence with games and self-play or adversarial play. There's a whole subject area around this in evolutionary game theory.
- poindontcare 3y agoMuZero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuZero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuZero
- api 3y agoThat's what I mean by gathering information through dynamic interaction. It's not explicitly given the rules, but it can infer them. Interacting with an external system and sampling the result is still a way of gathering training data. In fact this is ultimately how we've gathered almost all the information we have. If it's in our cultural knowledge store it means someone observed or experienced it. Humans are very good at learning by sampling reality and then later systematizing that knowledge and communicating it to other humans with language. It's basically what makes us "intelligent." A brain in a vat can't learn anything beyond recombinations of what it already knows. The fundamental limit on the growth of intelligence is the sum total of all information that can be statically input or dynamically sampled in its environment and what can be inferred from that information. Once you exhaust that you're a brain in a vat.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]