3 ms·

> Lack of independence implies low coordination costs Perhaps, but it's not obvious. Lack of independence implies more back-and-forth communication with the ce

> Lack of independence implies low coordination costs Perhaps, but it's not obvious. Lack of independence implies more back-and-forth communication with the central coordinator, whereas independent agents could do more work before communication is required. It's a tradeoff. > the features of an artificial intelligence implies the ability to maximally utilize the abilities of the sub-components Does it? Can you elaborate? > It stands to reason that the more powerful the mini-brains, along with the efficiency of coordination, implies a much more capable unified intelligence. It also implies an easier alignment problem. If an intelligence can coordinate "mini-brains" fully reliably (a big if, by the way), presumably I can do something similar with a Python script or narrow AI. Decoupling capability from independence is ideal with respect to alignment, so I'm a bit less worried, if this is how it's going to work.

hackinthebochs 3y ago
>Does it? Can you elaborate? I don't intend to say anything controversial here. The consideration is the tradeoff between independence and tight constraints of the subcomponents. Independent entities have their own interests, as well as added computational and energetic costs involved in managing a whole entity. These are costs that can't be directed towards the overarching goal. On the other hand, tightly constrained components do not have this extra overhead and so their capacity can be fully directed towards the goal as determined by the control system. In terms of utilization of compute and energy towards the principle goal, a unified AI will be more efficient. >If an intelligence can coordinate "mini-brains" fully reliably (a big if, by the way), presumably I can do something similar with a Python script or narrow AI. This is plausible, and I'm totally in favor of exploiting narrow AI to maximal effect. If the only AI we ever had to worry about was narrow AI, I wouldn't have any issue aside from the mundane issues we get with the potential misuse of any new technology. But we know people (e.g. open AI) are explicitly aiming towards AGI so we need to be planning for this eventuality.

hackinthebochs 3y ago

>Does it? Can you elaborate? I don't intend to say anything controversial here. The consideration is the tradeoff between independence and tight constraints of the subcomponents. Independent entities have their own interests, as well as added computational and energetic costs involved in managing a whole entity. These are costs that can't be directed towards the overarching goal. On the other hand, tightly constrained components do not have this extra overhead and so their capacity can be fully directed towards the goal as determined by the control system. In terms of utilization of compute and energy towards the principle goal, a unified AI will be more efficient. >If an intelligence can coordinate "mini-brains" fully reliably (a big if, by the way), presumably I can do something similar with a Python script or narrow AI. This is plausible, and I'm totally in favor of exploiting narrow AI to maximal effect. If the only AI we ever had to worry about was narrow AI, I wouldn't have any issue aside from the mundane issues we get with the potential misuse of any new technology. But we know people (e.g. open AI) are explicitly aiming towards AGI so we need to be planning for this eventuality.