3 ms·

Not only is such an entity possible, it's already here, the only difference is clock speed. Corportations (really any large organization devoted to some kind of

by Xirgil 3y ago

Not only is such an entity possible, it's already here, the only difference is clock speed. Corportations (really any large organization devoted to some kind of intellectual work, or you could say human society as a whole) can be thought of as a superintelligent entity composed of biological processors running in parallel. They that can store, process, and create information at superhuman speeds compared to the individual. And given that our brains evolved restricted by the calories available to our ancient ancestors, the size of the human pelvis, and a multitude of other obsolete factors, that individual processing unit clearly far from optimal. But even if you just imagine the peak demonstrated potential of the human brain in the form of an AI process it's easy to see how that could be scaled to massively superhuman levels. Imagine a corporation that could recruit from a pool of candidates (only bound by their computing power) each with the intellect of John von Neumann, with a personality fine tuned for their role, that can think faster by increasing their clock speed, that can access, learn and communicate information near instantly, happily work 24/7 with zero complaint or fatigue, etc, etc. Imagine how much more efficient (how much more superintelligent) that company would be compared to its competition.

breuleux 3y ago
The parent was positing, at a minimum, a 30 million fold increase in clock speed. This entails a proportional increase in energy consumption, which would likely destroy any thermal envelope the size of a brain. The only reason current processors run that fast is that there are very few of them: millions of synaptic calculations therefore have to be multiplexed into each, leading to an effective clock rate that's far closer to a human brain's than you would assume. As for your corporation example, I do not think the effectiveness of a corporation is necessarily bottlenecked by the number or intelligence of its employees. Notwithstanding the problem of coordinating many agents, there are many situations where the steps to design a solution are sequential and a hundred people won't get you there any faster than two. The chaotic nature of reality also entails a fundamental difficulty in predicting complex systems: you can only think so far ahead before the expected deviation between your plan and reality becomes too large. You need a feedback loop where you test your designs against reality and adjust accordingly, and this also acts as a bottleneck on the effectiveness of intelligence. I'm not saying "superintelligent" AI couldn't be an order of magnitude better, mind you. I just think the upside is far, far less than the 7+ orders of magnitude the parent is talking about.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  I can think of a counterpoint or a workaround (or at least a sketch of either) for each of your objections, despite being moderately intelligent for a human. A superintelligence will think of many, many more (if it couldn't, it wouldn't be much of an intelligence in the first place). For example: > The parent was positing, at a minimum, a 30 million fold increase in clock speed. This entails a proportional increase in energy consumption, which would likely destroy any thermal envelope the size of a brain. No reason to restrict the size of an artificial mind to that of a human brain. With no need to design for being part of a mobile, independently-operating body, the design space grows substantially. Even on existing hardware, you can boost the serial processing speed by a whole order of magnitude if you submerge it in liquid nitrogen. I imagine you could get much greater speeds still on hardware designed specifically for cryogenic cooling with cryo liquids at much lower temperatures. Maybe not 7 orders of magnitude difference, but 3 seem plausible with custom hardware. Corporations are a good example of what's effectively AIs living among us today, but their performance is indeed bottlenecked by many things. A lot of them don't seem fundamental, but rather a result of the "corporate mind" growing organically on top of the runtime of bureaucracy - it's evolved software, as opposed to designed one. E.g.: > there are many situations where the steps to design a solution are sequential and a hundred people won't get you there any faster than two That's IMO because managers and executives, like everyone else, don't see employees and teams as a computational process, and don't try to optimize them as one. You can get a boost on sequential problems with extra parallelism, but it would look weird if done with human teams. You could absolutely do pipelining and branch prediction with teams and departments, but good luck explaining why this works to your shareholders... The point being, while corporations themselves won't become superintelligences, due to bottlenecks you mention, those limits don't apply to AIs inhabiting proper computers. 7 orders of magnitude advantage over humans may be way too much, but I don't see anything prohibiting 2-3, maybe even 4 orders, and honestly, even 1 order of magnitude difference is unimaginably large.

by Xirgil 3y ago

breuleux 3y ago

The parent was positing, at a minimum, a 30 million fold increase in clock speed. This entails a proportional increase in energy consumption, which would likely destroy any thermal envelope the size of a brain. The only reason current processors run that fast is that there are very few of them: millions of synaptic calculations therefore have to be multiplexed into each, leading to an effective clock rate that's far closer to a human brain's than you would assume. As for your corporation example, I do not think the effectiveness of a corporation is necessarily bottlenecked by the number or intelligence of its employees. Notwithstanding the problem of coordinating many agents, there are many situations where the steps to design a solution are sequential and a hundred people won't get you there any faster than two. The chaotic nature of reality also entails a fundamental difficulty in predicting complex systems: you can only think so far ahead before the expected deviation between your plan and reality becomes too large. You need a feedback loop where you test your designs against reality and adjust accordingly, and this also acts as a bottleneck on the effectiveness of intelligence. I'm not saying "superintelligent" AI couldn't be an order of magnitude better, mind you. I just think the upside is far, far less than the 7+ orders of magnitude the parent is talking about.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
I can think of a counterpoint or a workaround (or at least a sketch of either) for each of your objections, despite being moderately intelligent for a human. A superintelligence will think of many, many more (if it couldn't, it wouldn't be much of an intelligence in the first place). For example: > The parent was positing, at a minimum, a 30 million fold increase in clock speed. This entails a proportional increase in energy consumption, which would likely destroy any thermal envelope the size of a brain. No reason to restrict the size of an artificial mind to that of a human brain. With no need to design for being part of a mobile, independently-operating body, the design space grows substantially. Even on existing hardware, you can boost the serial processing speed by a whole order of magnitude if you submerge it in liquid nitrogen. I imagine you could get much greater speeds still on hardware designed specifically for cryogenic cooling with cryo liquids at much lower temperatures. Maybe not 7 orders of magnitude difference, but 3 seem plausible with custom hardware. Corporations are a good example of what's effectively AIs living among us today, but their performance is indeed bottlenecked by many things. A lot of them don't seem fundamental, but rather a result of the "corporate mind" growing organically on top of the runtime of bureaucracy - it's evolved software, as opposed to designed one. E.g.: > there are many situations where the steps to design a solution are sequential and a hundred people won't get you there any faster than two That's IMO because managers and executives, like everyone else, don't see employees and teams as a computational process, and don't try to optimize them as one. You can get a boost on sequential problems with extra parallelism, but it would look weird if done with human teams. You could absolutely do pipelining and branch prediction with teams and departments, but good luck explaining why this works to your shareholders... The point being, while corporations themselves won't become superintelligences, due to bottlenecks you mention, those limits don't apply to AIs inhabiting proper computers. 7 orders of magnitude advantage over humans may be way too much, but I don't see anything prohibiting 2-3, maybe even 4 orders, and honestly, even 1 order of magnitude difference is unimaginably large.