4 ms·

Why do we act like people all have an approximately uniform intelligence that will be surpassed by AI intelligence by orders of magnitude in all dimensions? In

Why do we act like people all have an approximately uniform intelligence that will be surpassed by AI intelligence by orders of magnitude in all dimensions? In my experience, different people are smart about different things, sometimes yes by orders of magnitude. Couldn't an AI being smarter than some people be no more surprising than some people being smarter than some other people?

ben_w 3y ago
> Why do we act like people all have an approximately uniform intelligence that will be surpassed by AI intelligence by orders of magnitude in all dimensions? I at least don't consider people to be uniform. If I act like I do, that's illusory. For orders of magnitude higher performance by AI: all have a massive intrinsic speed advantage already (which is currently balanced by an almost but not quite equally massive training set required disadvantage — they can read the entire internet, but they need to too), and the go and chess AI have already vastly exceeded human capacity. I think this kind of thing is also part of why AGI means different things to different people. By my standards, ChatGPT is already an AGI, it's able to operate on text-based tasks in general (the G in AGI) at a level higher than some humans and lower than others — if I'm right, a lot of people are already no longer capable of being economically viable, and their only hope in the current economic system is that the market for their labour doesn't act with perfect information. I may also just be wildly over-estimating the capabilities of ChatGPT.
- melagonster 3y ago
  yes, chatGPT had let people lose their jobs. this also prove that we have no chance when AI got everyone's job. do anyone care people who displace by chatGPT?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > this also prove that we have no chance when AI got everyone's job. Not "prove", but it is suggestive. To prove it, ChatGPT would have to also prevent them getting another one. > do anyone care people who displace by chatGPT? I can't parse this sentence. Are you asking: 1. Does anyone care about the people who are displaced by ChatGPT? 2. Does anyone care for the people who are displaced by ChatGPT? 3. Does anyone care that people are displaced by ChatGPT? 4. Does anyone care about the people who are using ChatGPT to displace others? Or something else?
    - melagonster 3y ago
      >Not "prove", but it is suggestive. To prove it, ChatGPT would have to also prevent them getting another one. Maybe it won't take all jobs. but this displayed that it is impossible to implement UBI or other strategies before most of people losing job. >I can't parse this sentence. thanks for your free English class, bro.
pixl97 3y ago
There are a lot of things we can define with physics because they can be easily measured. The particular problem with intelligence it is a measure of systems complexity which is something us as humans are very bad at measuring. As far as I know all measures of intelligence we have are relative. That is one person/system is more intelligent than another. But there is no meaningful measure if how intelligent a system can be. That is, what is peak intelligence?

ben_w 3y ago

> Why do we act like people all have an approximately uniform intelligence that will be surpassed by AI intelligence by orders of magnitude in all dimensions? I at least don't consider people to be uniform. If I act like I do, that's illusory. For orders of magnitude higher performance by AI: all have a massive intrinsic speed advantage already (which is currently balanced by an almost but not quite equally massive training set required disadvantage — they can read the entire internet, but they need to too), and the go and chess AI have already vastly exceeded human capacity. I think this kind of thing is also part of why AGI means different things to different people. By my standards, ChatGPT is already an AGI, it's able to operate on text-based tasks in general (the G in AGI) at a level higher than some humans and lower than others — if I'm right, a lot of people are already no longer capable of being economically viable, and their only hope in the current economic system is that the market for their labour doesn't act with perfect information. I may also just be wildly over-estimating the capabilities of ChatGPT.

melagonster 3y ago
yes, chatGPT had let people lose their jobs. this also prove that we have no chance when AI got everyone's job. do anyone care people who displace by chatGPT?
- ben_w 3y ago
  > this also prove that we have no chance when AI got everyone's job. Not "prove", but it is suggestive. To prove it, ChatGPT would have to also prevent them getting another one. > do anyone care people who displace by chatGPT? I can't parse this sentence. Are you asking: 1. Does anyone care about the people who are displaced by ChatGPT? 2. Does anyone care for the people who are displaced by ChatGPT? 3. Does anyone care that people are displaced by ChatGPT? 4. Does anyone care about the people who are using ChatGPT to displace others? Or something else?
  - melagonster 3y ago
    >Not "prove", but it is suggestive. To prove it, ChatGPT would have to also prevent them getting another one. Maybe it won't take all jobs. but this displayed that it is impossible to implement UBI or other strategies before most of people losing job. >I can't parse this sentence. thanks for your free English class, bro.

pixl97 3y ago

There are a lot of things we can define with physics because they can be easily measured. The particular problem with intelligence it is a measure of systems complexity which is something us as humans are very bad at measuring. As far as I know all measures of intelligence we have are relative. That is one person/system is more intelligent than another. But there is no meaningful measure if how intelligent a system can be. That is, what is peak intelligence?