3 ms·

really? current-day anatomically humans and superhuman AI “working together” in the future seems naïve. what would humans contribute?

ben_w 2y ago
Even just building a silicon duplicate of a human brain, one transistor per synapse and with current technology*, the silicon copy would cognitively outpace the organic original by about the same ratio to which we ourselves outpace continental drift while walking. * 2017 tech, albeit at great expense because half a quadrillion transistors is expensive to build and to run
- jaggederest 2y ago
  Yes, of course, but would they be different in a way that goes beyond "merely faster"? I think the qualitative differences are more interesting than the quantitative ones. For example, I can easily picture superhuman intelligences that have neither the patience nor interest in the kinds of things that humans are interested in, except in so far as the humans ask politely. A creature like that could create fabulous works of art in the human mode, but would have no desire to do so besides sublimating the desire of the humans around.
geysersam 2y ago
Who knows. Depends on. The Devil is in the details. Is it really unthinkable? What if future AIs are not omnipotent, but bounded by some to us right now unknown limitations. Just like us, but differently limited. Maybe they appreciate our relative limitlessness just as we do theirs.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  it is unthinkable to me, frankly
  - geysersam 2y ago
    I'm curious. What assumptions about the nature of the human mind and the nature of future superintelligence lead you to that conclusion?
jaggederest 2y ago
Why do you assume that what we call humans in the future will be current-day anatomically human? I assume, for example, the ability to run versions of yourself virtually and merge the state vectors at will. Special purpose vehicles designed for certain tasks. Wild genetic, cybernetic, and nanotech experimentation. I'm talking about fundamentally novel superhuman intelligences working with someone who has spent a few millennia exploring what it means to truly be themselves.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I am not assuming that, I am just stating the view I believe is indefensible. Yours is fine, by contrast
jaggederest 2y ago
Here's an analogy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6T6suvnhco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6T6suvnhco

ben_w 2y ago

Even just building a silicon duplicate of a human brain, one transistor per synapse and with current technology*, the silicon copy would cognitively outpace the organic original by about the same ratio to which we ourselves outpace continental drift while walking. * 2017 tech, albeit at great expense because half a quadrillion transistors is expensive to build and to run

jaggederest 2y ago
Yes, of course, but would they be different in a way that goes beyond "merely faster"? I think the qualitative differences are more interesting than the quantitative ones. For example, I can easily picture superhuman intelligences that have neither the patience nor interest in the kinds of things that humans are interested in, except in so far as the humans ask politely. A creature like that could create fabulous works of art in the human mode, but would have no desire to do so besides sublimating the desire of the humans around.

geysersam 2y ago

Who knows. Depends on. The Devil is in the details. Is it really unthinkable? What if future AIs are not omnipotent, but bounded by some to us right now unknown limitations. Just like us, but differently limited. Maybe they appreciate our relative limitlessness just as we do theirs.

whimsicalism 2y ago
it is unthinkable to me, frankly
- geysersam 2y ago
  I'm curious. What assumptions about the nature of the human mind and the nature of future superintelligence lead you to that conclusion?

jaggederest 2y ago

Why do you assume that what we call humans in the future will be current-day anatomically human? I assume, for example, the ability to run versions of yourself virtually and merge the state vectors at will. Special purpose vehicles designed for certain tasks. Wild genetic, cybernetic, and nanotech experimentation. I'm talking about fundamentally novel superhuman intelligences working with someone who has spent a few millennia exploring what it means to truly be themselves.

whimsicalism 2y ago
I am not assuming that, I am just stating the view I believe is indefensible. Yours is fine, by contrast

jaggederest 2y ago

Here's an analogy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6T6suvnhco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6T6suvnhco