3 ms·

> For current standards of what intelligence means, we'd better hope we don't get ASI in the next decade or two, because if and when that happens then "humans n

> For current standards of what intelligence means, we'd better hope we don't get ASI in the next decade or two, because if and when that happens then "humans need not apply" — and by extension, foundational assumptions of economics may just stop holding true. I'm not sure that we need superintelligence for that to be the case - it may depend on whether you include physical ability in the definition of intelligence. At the point that we have an AI that's capable of every task that say a 110 IQ human is, including manipulating objects in the physical world, then basically everyone is unemployed unless they're cheaper than the AI.

ben_w 2y ago
While I would certainly expect a radical change to economics even from a middling IQ AI — or indeed a low IQ, as I have previously used the example of IQ 85 because that's 15.9% of the population that would become permanently unable to be economically useful — I don't think it's quite as you say. Increasing IQ scores seem to allow increasingly difficult tasks to be performed competently — not just the same tasks faster, and also not just "increasingly difficult" in the big-O-notation sense, but it seems like below certain IQ thresholds (or above them but with certain pathologies), some thoughts just aren't "thinkable" even with unbounded time. While this might simply be an illusion that breaks with computers because silicon outpaces synapses by literally the degree to which jogging outpaces continental drift, I don't see strong evidence at this time for the idea that this is an illusion. We may get that evidence in a very short window, but I don't see it yet. Therefore, in the absence of full brain uploads, I suspect that higher IQ people may well be able to perform useful work even as lower IQ people are outclassed by AI. If we do get full brain uploads, then it's the other way around, as a few super-geniuses will get their brains scanned but say it takes a billion dollars a year to run the sim in real time, then Moore's and Koomey's laws will take n years to lower that to $10 million dollars a year, 2n years to lower it to a $100k a year, and 3n years to lower it to $1k/year.
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  I completely agree with everything that you're saying here - my use of the term "basically everyone" was lazy in that I'm implying that at the 110 IQ level the majority (approx 70%) of people are economically obsolete outside of niche areas (e.g. care/butler style work in which people desire the "human touch" for emotional reasons). I think that far below the 70% level we've already broken economics. I can't see a society functioning in which most people actually _know_ that they can't break out of whatever box they're currently in - I think that things like UBI are a distraction in that they don't account for things like status jockeying that I think we're pretty hardwired to do.
- danenania 2y ago
  I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. IQ is only one component of what allows a typical worker to do their job. Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean that any other human with an equal or greater IQ can also do that job effectively.
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    This is it. Another primary example is that I can put a 80 IQ person to work on a farm or let them build something under supervision. There is no way for an AI to do either at this time, even if the AI is much smarter.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Ah, AI have been doing both farm work and "building things under supervision" work for a while now. Robots are a thing, AI controlling robots is a thing.
      - rowanG077 2y ago
        Robots at this point are specialized for a highly specific task. None of them are as dynamically deployable as a 80 IQ person. You can let a walk around a construction site doing whatever, no such robot is available right now. If I'm wrong please post where I can buy such a general robot.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Robots are hardware, AI is software, so in principle you can put any AI in charge of any robot. A quick google got me this list of current uses, I'd suggest you can skim the first part as it will be clear when you get to the actual examples: https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots (But disregard Atlas, IIRC Boston Dynamics don't sell that, only the robot dogs? But you didn't actually ask for a humanoid, so you can have the dogs as a replacement). I've seen demos from Agility before this: https://agilityrobotics.com/ https://agilityrobotics.com/ Likewise Figure being tested in BMW: https://www.figure.ai/ https://www.figure.ai/ And are you really sure about what it means to be an IQ 80 human? Because that's where people start having problems reading plans, safety instructions, timesheets etc., or following multi-step instructions, handling unexpected situations.
someothherguyy 2y ago
> At the point that we have an AI that's capable of every task that say a 110 IQ human is, including manipulating objects in the physical world, then basically everyone is unemployed unless they're cheaper than the AI. Until a problem space is "solved", you will still need AIs that are more capable than those with 110 IQ to review the other AIs work. All evidence points to "mistakes will be made" with any AI system I have used and any human I have worked with.

ben_w 2y ago

While I would certainly expect a radical change to economics even from a middling IQ AI — or indeed a low IQ, as I have previously used the example of IQ 85 because that's 15.9% of the population that would become permanently unable to be economically useful — I don't think it's quite as you say. Increasing IQ scores seem to allow increasingly difficult tasks to be performed competently — not just the same tasks faster, and also not just "increasingly difficult" in the big-O-notation sense, but it seems like below certain IQ thresholds (or above them but with certain pathologies), some thoughts just aren't "thinkable" even with unbounded time. While this might simply be an illusion that breaks with computers because silicon outpaces synapses by literally the degree to which jogging outpaces continental drift, I don't see strong evidence at this time for the idea that this is an illusion. We may get that evidence in a very short window, but I don't see it yet. Therefore, in the absence of full brain uploads, I suspect that higher IQ people may well be able to perform useful work even as lower IQ people are outclassed by AI. If we do get full brain uploads, then it's the other way around, as a few super-geniuses will get their brains scanned but say it takes a billion dollars a year to run the sim in real time, then Moore's and Koomey's laws will take n years to lower that to $10 million dollars a year, 2n years to lower it to a $100k a year, and 3n years to lower it to $1k/year.

naming_the_user 2y ago
I completely agree with everything that you're saying here - my use of the term "basically everyone" was lazy in that I'm implying that at the 110 IQ level the majority (approx 70%) of people are economically obsolete outside of niche areas (e.g. care/butler style work in which people desire the "human touch" for emotional reasons). I think that far below the 70% level we've already broken economics. I can't see a society functioning in which most people actually _know_ that they can't break out of whatever box they're currently in - I think that things like UBI are a distraction in that they don't account for things like status jockeying that I think we're pretty hardwired to do.
danenania 2y ago
I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. IQ is only one component of what allows a typical worker to do their job. Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean that any other human with an equal or greater IQ can also do that job effectively.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  This is it. Another primary example is that I can put a 80 IQ person to work on a farm or let them build something under supervision. There is no way for an AI to do either at this time, even if the AI is much smarter.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Ah, AI have been doing both farm work and "building things under supervision" work for a while now. Robots are a thing, AI controlling robots is a thing.
    - rowanG077 2y ago
      Robots at this point are specialized for a highly specific task. None of them are as dynamically deployable as a 80 IQ person. You can let a walk around a construction site doing whatever, no such robot is available right now. If I'm wrong please post where I can buy such a general robot.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Robots are hardware, AI is software, so in principle you can put any AI in charge of any robot. A quick google got me this list of current uses, I'd suggest you can skim the first part as it will be clear when you get to the actual examples: https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots (But disregard Atlas, IIRC Boston Dynamics don't sell that, only the robot dogs? But you didn't actually ask for a humanoid, so you can have the dogs as a replacement). I've seen demos from Agility before this: https://agilityrobotics.com/ https://agilityrobotics.com/ Likewise Figure being tested in BMW: https://www.figure.ai/ https://www.figure.ai/ And are you really sure about what it means to be an IQ 80 human? Because that's where people start having problems reading plans, safety instructions, timesheets etc., or following multi-step instructions, handling unexpected situations.

someothherguyy 2y ago

> At the point that we have an AI that's capable of every task that say a 110 IQ human is, including manipulating objects in the physical world, then basically everyone is unemployed unless they're cheaper than the AI. Until a problem space is "solved", you will still need AIs that are more capable than those with 110 IQ to review the other AIs work. All evidence points to "mistakes will be made" with any AI system I have used and any human I have worked with.