3 ms·

In the general case, the entire species is an example of ASI. We're a collective intelligence. Individually we're pretty stupid, even when we're relatively int

In the general case, the entire species is an example of ASI. We're a collective intelligence. Individually we're pretty stupid, even when we're relatively intelligent. But we have created social systems which persist and amplify individual intelligence to raise collective ability. But this proto-ASI isn't sentient. It's not even particularly sane. It's extremely fragile, with numerous internal conflicts which keep kneecapping its potential. It keeps skirting suicidal ideation. Right now parts of it are going into reverse. The difference between where we are now and AI is that ASI could potentially automate and unify the accumulation of knowledge and intelligence, with more effective persistence, and without the internal conflicts. It's completely unknown if it would want to keep us around. We probably can't even imagine its thought processes. It would be so far outside our experience we have no way of predicting its abilities and choices.

whyowhy3484939 1y ago
I get the idea, but I'm not quite sold on it. Being intelligent on vast scales is something an individual cannot do, but I'm not sure the "species" is more intelligent than any individual agent. I'm actually a bit more sure of the opposite. It's like LLM agents where just adding more doesn't improve the quality it just introduces more room for bullshit. To allocate capital on vast scales and make decisions on industry etc, sure, that's a level of intelligence quite beyond any one of us but this feels like cheating the definition of intelligence. It's not the quantity of it that matters, it's the quality. It's like flying I guess. A large bird and a small bird are both flying and the big bird is not doing "more" of it. A group of birds is doing something an individual is incapable of (forming a swarm), sure, but it's not an improvement on flying. It's just something else. That something else can be useful, but I don't particularly like applying that same move to "intelligence". If the species was so goddamn intelligent it could solve unreasonable IQ tests and it cannot. If we want to solve something really, really hard we use Edward Witten not "the species". That's because there is no "species", there is only a bunch of individuals and if they all score bad, the aggregate will score bad as well. We just coast because a bunch of us are extraordinarily clever.

whyowhy3484939 1y ago

I get the idea, but I'm not quite sold on it. Being intelligent on vast scales is something an individual cannot do, but I'm not sure the "species" is more intelligent than any individual agent. I'm actually a bit more sure of the opposite. It's like LLM agents where just adding more doesn't improve the quality it just introduces more room for bullshit. To allocate capital on vast scales and make decisions on industry etc, sure, that's a level of intelligence quite beyond any one of us but this feels like cheating the definition of intelligence. It's not the quantity of it that matters, it's the quality. It's like flying I guess. A large bird and a small bird are both flying and the big bird is not doing "more" of it. A group of birds is doing something an individual is incapable of (forming a swarm), sure, but it's not an improvement on flying. It's just something else. That something else can be useful, but I don't particularly like applying that same move to "intelligence". If the species was so goddamn intelligent it could solve unreasonable IQ tests and it cannot. If we want to solve something really, really hard we use Edward Witten not "the species". That's because there is no "species", there is only a bunch of individuals and if they all score bad, the aggregate will score bad as well. We just coast because a bunch of us are extraordinarily clever.