3 ms·
Well, it depends. on some tasks, they surely are already super-intelligent.
by t55 2y ago
Well, it depends. on some tasks, they surely are already super-intelligent.
- lblume 2y agoWhen talking about superintelligence it is generally clear that general intelligence is meant, as specialized superintelligence has been solved for many areas for decades now without modern AI.
- highfrequency 2y agoTrue but misses the point - surely quantity matters? A machine that can do 0.001% of basic tasks vs. one that can do 20% of basic tasks seems qualitatively different.
- lblume 2y agoHow to classify that fraction? Let's say D. Gukesh (current chess champion) plays and learns chess for 50% of his time awake. Would you consider Stockfish to be a superintelligence that accounts for 50% of basic task wrt D. Gukesh? What if tasks (like some types of entertainment) usually are not relevantly attributed to intelligence at all? I would love to find answers to the questions but find them difficult to the point of being too vague to answer.