3 ms·

I also frequently see the slightly weaker form of argument hypothesizing "diminishing returns" of intelligence or some other claim that humans are close the pra

I also frequently see the slightly weaker form of argument hypothesizing "diminishing returns" of intelligence or some other claim that humans are close the practical upper limit of intelligence.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Which is pretty stupid, because what human intelligence wouldn't be greatly enhanced by cybernetic math coprocessors and perfect wide memory recall, and a greatly increased lifespan so there wasn't so much collective work done constantly (re)training new generations and passing forward knowledge in 18-30 year education programs, which are constrained by communication mechanisms with bandwidth possibly in the thousand bytes per second rate? The sad fact is that the only real fiction in Isaac Asimov's robots is the ability to impose the laws of robotics.
- card_zero 2y ago
  But we have math processors, I own several, they're just not implanted in my head, so what? Why would sticking them in there make me "super-intelligent"? If my calculator has a better interface so I can use it faster, is that also making me more intelligent? These things are tools, the hype about super-intelligence is just about a person with very effective tools. Oh noes!
  - Hugsun 2y ago
    Having good tools is definitely a force multiplier, but as you say, we already have those. We are however limited in how fast we can interface with these tools. There is a lot of potential improvement from just knowing the answer to a mathematical/logical expression, just by thinking about it. Saving you the context and mode switch. The real power comes from being able to simulate and model complex phenomena using wetware integrated tools. A big component of intelligence is the ability to create accurate mental models, and probe them. If you integrate an accurate physics simulator, a 3D modeler, a ray tracer, etc. You have greatly improved their internal modeling abilities and they can (theoretically) dedicate more neurons to higher abstractions that rely on these well grounded systems. It is also not clear that human level intelligence is any real limit. We could just as well make a super-intelligent AI without tool use. The current hype around tool use is just to make current LLMs a bit better.

I also frequently see the slightly weaker form of argument hypothesizing "diminishing returns" of intelligence or some other claim that humans are close the practical upper limit of intelligence.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Which is pretty stupid, because what human intelligence wouldn't be greatly enhanced by cybernetic math coprocessors and perfect wide memory recall, and a greatly increased lifespan so there wasn't so much collective work done constantly (re)training new generations and passing forward knowledge in 18-30 year education programs, which are constrained by communication mechanisms with bandwidth possibly in the thousand bytes per second rate? The sad fact is that the only real fiction in Isaac Asimov's robots is the ability to impose the laws of robotics.

card_zero 2y ago
But we have math processors, I own several, they're just not implanted in my head, so what? Why would sticking them in there make me "super-intelligent"? If my calculator has a better interface so I can use it faster, is that also making me more intelligent? These things are tools, the hype about super-intelligence is just about a person with very effective tools. Oh noes!
- Hugsun 2y ago
  Having good tools is definitely a force multiplier, but as you say, we already have those. We are however limited in how fast we can interface with these tools. There is a lot of potential improvement from just knowing the answer to a mathematical/logical expression, just by thinking about it. Saving you the context and mode switch. The real power comes from being able to simulate and model complex phenomena using wetware integrated tools. A big component of intelligence is the ability to create accurate mental models, and probe them. If you integrate an accurate physics simulator, a 3D modeler, a ray tracer, etc. You have greatly improved their internal modeling abilities and they can (theoretically) dedicate more neurons to higher abstractions that rely on these well grounded systems. It is also not clear that human level intelligence is any real limit. We could just as well make a super-intelligent AI without tool use. The current hype around tool use is just to make current LLMs a bit better.