4 ms·

I used to believe in AGI but the more AI has advanced the more I’ve come to realize that there’s no magic level of intelligence that can cure cancer and figure

I used to believe in AGI but the more AI has advanced the more I’ve come to realize that there’s no magic level of intelligence that can cure cancer and figure out warp drives. You need data, which requires experimentation, which requires labor and resources of which there is a finite supply. If you had AGI tomorrow and asked it to cure cancer, it would just ask for more experimental data and resources. Isn’t that what the greatest minds in cancer research would say as well? Why do we think that just being more rational or being able to compute better than humans would be sufficient to solve the problem? It’s very possible that human beings today are already doing the most intelligent things they can given the data and resources they have available. This whole idea that there’s a magic property called intelligence that can solve every problem when it reaches a sufficient level, regardless of what data and resources it has to work with, increasingly just seems like the fantasy of people who think they’re very intelligent.

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
Agreed. And, if you had AGI tomorrow and asked it to figure out FTL warp drives, it would just explain to you how it's not going to happen. It is impossible, the end. In fact the request is fantasy, nigh nonsensical and self-contradictory. Isn’t that what the greatest minds in physics would say as well? Yes, yes it is. No debate will be entered into on this topic by me today.
- kragen 1y ago
  Actually, no, it isn't. They say it isn't necessarily possible, but not self-contradictory as far as we know. It's good that you aren't going to debate this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
  - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
    You failed reading comprehension.
    - kragen 1y ago
      You think I'm the one who's failing here? You said: "(...) if you had AGI tomorrow and asked it to figure out FTL warp drives, it would just explain to you how it's not going to happen. It is impossible, the end. In fact the request is fantasy, nigh nonsensical and self-contradictory." "Isn’t that what the greatest minds in physics would say as well? Yes, yes it is." That is not in fact what the greatest minds in physics would say. Your meta-knowledge of physics has failed you here, resulting in you posting embarrassing misinformation. I'm just having to correct it to prevent you from misleading anyone else.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
        You failed to realise that I'm not debating you, I'm berating you. Some people see statements like "not debating" as a personal challenge, a reason to get aggressive. Lets be clear: they are not nice people, and you don't want to be trolls like them.
        kragen 1y ago
        Yes, I can see that you're just trolling, not debating. I appreciate the fact that you aren't debating, because I don't want to have to correct more of your misinformation. I don't think your berating is productive either, although it does demonstrate that—as you said—you are not a nice person.
regularfry 1y ago
AGI isn't a synonym for smarter-than-human.
- an0malous 1y ago
  What’s your point? I’m saying there’s no level of smartness that can cure cancer, the bottleneck is data and experimentation not a shortage of smartness/intelligence
  - regularfry 1y ago
    And I'm saying that AGI doesn't imply a level of smartness at all.
lossolo 1y ago
Generally, I agree, but it also depends on perspective. Intelligence exists on many levels and manifests differently across species. From a monkey's standpoint, if they were capable of such reflection they might perceive themselves as the most capable creatures in their environment. Yet, humans possess cognitive abilities that go far beyond that, abstract reasoning, cumulative culture, large scale cooperation etc A chimpanzee can use tools and solve problems, but it will never construct a factory, design an iPhone, or build even a simple wooden house. Humans can, because our intelligence operates at a qualitatively different level. As humans, we can easily visualize and reason about 2D and 3D spaces, it's natural because our sensory systems evolved to navigate a 3D world. But can we truly conceive of a million dimensions, let alone visualize them? We can describe them mathematically, but not intuitively grasp them. Our brains are not built for that kind of complexity. Now imagine a form of intelligence that can directly perceive and reason about such high dimensional structures. Entirely new kinds of understanding and capabilities might emerge. If a being could fully comprehend the underlying rules of the universe, it might not need to perform physical experiments at all, it could simply simulate outcomes internally. Of course that's speculative, but it just illustrates how deeply intelligence is shaped and limited by its biological foundation.
- SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
  > A chimpanzee can use tools and solve problems, but it will never construct a factory, design an iPhone, or build even a simple wooden house. Humans can, because our intelligence operates at a qualitatively different level. Humans existed in the world for hundreds of thousands of years before they did any of those things, with the exception of wooden hut, which took less time than that. But also wasn't instant. Your example doesn't entirely contradict the argument that it takes time and experimentation as well, that intellect isn't the only limiting factor.
  - lossolo 1y ago
    My point wasn't so much about how fast humans achieved these things, but about what's possible at all given a certain cognitive architecture. Chimpanzees could live for another million years and still wouldn't build a factory, not because they don't have enough time, but because they lack the cognitive and cultural mechanisms to accumulate and transmit abstract knowledge. So I completely agree that intelligence alone isn't the only factor, it's the whole foundation.
kragen 1y ago
Eliezer’s short story “That Alien Message” providing a convincing argument that humans are cognitively limited, not data-limited, through the device of a fictional world where people think faster: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien... > Yes. There is. The theoretical limit is that every time you see 1 additional bit, it cannot be expected to eliminate more than half of the remaining hypotheses (half the remaining probability mass, rather). And that a redundant message, cannot convey more information than the compressed version of itself. Nor can a bit convey any information about a quantity, with which it has correlation exactly zero, across the probable worlds you imagine. > But nothing I've depicted this human civilization doing, even begins to approach the theoretical limits set by the formalism of Solomonoff induction. This is also a commonplace in behavioral economics; the whole foundation of the field is that people in general don't think hard enough to fully exploit the information available to them, because they don't have the time or the energy. —— Of course, that doesn't mean that great intelligence could figure out warp drives. Maybe warp drives are actually physically impossible! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive says: > A warp drive or a drive enabling space warp is a fictional superluminal (faster than the speed of light) spacecraft propulsion system in many science fiction works, most notably Star Trek,[1] and a subject of ongoing real-life physics research. (...) > The creation of such a bubble requires exotic matter—substances with negative energy density (a violation of the Weak Energy Condition). Casimir effect experiments have hinted at the existence of negative energy in quantum fields, but practical production at the required scale remains speculative. —— Cancer, however, is clearly curable, and indeed often cured nowadays. It wouldn't be terribly surprising if we already had enough data to figure out how to solve it the rest of the time. We already have complete genomes for many species, AlphaFold has solved the protein-folding problem, research oncology studies routinely sequence tumors nowadays, and IHEC says they already have "comprehensive sets of reference epigenomes", so with enough computational power, or more efficient simulation algorithms, we could probably simulate an entire human body much faster than real time with enough fidelity to simulate cancer, thus enabling us to test candidate drug molecules against a particular cancer instantly. Also, of course, once you can build reliable nanobots, you can just program them to kill a particular kind of cancer cell, then inject them. Understanding this does not require believing that "intelligence that can solve every problem when it reaches a sufficient level, regardless of what data and resources it has to work with", which I think is a strawman you have made up. It doesn't even require believing that sufficient intelligence can solve every problem if it has sufficient data and resources to work with. It only requires understanding that being able to do the same thing regular humans do, but much faster, would be sufficient to cure cancer. —— There does seem to be an open question about how general intelligence is. We know that there isn't much difference in intelligence between people; 90+% of the human population can learn to write a computer program, make a pit-fired pot from clay, haggle in a bazaar, paint a realistic portrait, speak Chinese, fix a broken pipe, interrogate a suspect and notice when he contradicts himself, fletch an arrow, make a convincing argument in courts, program a VCR, write poetry, solve a Rubik's cube, make a béchamel sauce, weave a cloth, sing a five-minute lullaby, sew a seam, or machine a screw thread on a lathe. (They might not be able to learn all of them, because it depends on what they spend time on.) And, as far as we know, no other animal species can do any of those things: not chimpanzees, not dolphins, not octopodes, not African grey parrots. And most of them aren't instinctive activities even in humans—many didn't exist 1000 years ago, and some didn't exist even 100 years ago. So humans clearly have some fairly flexible facility that these other species lack. "Intelligence" is the usual name for that facility. But it's not perfectly general. For example, it involves some degree of ability to imagine three-dimensional space. Some of the humans can also reason about four- or five-dimensional spaces, but this is a much slower and more difficult process, far out of proportion to the underlying mathematical difficulty of the problem. And it's plausible that this is beyond the cognitive ability of large parts of the population. And maybe there are other problems that some other sort of intelligence would find easy, but which the humans don't even notice because it's incomprehensible to them.

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago

Agreed. And, if you had AGI tomorrow and asked it to figure out FTL warp drives, it would just explain to you how it's not going to happen. It is impossible, the end. In fact the request is fantasy, nigh nonsensical and self-contradictory. Isn’t that what the greatest minds in physics would say as well? Yes, yes it is. No debate will be entered into on this topic by me today.

kragen 1y ago
Actually, no, it isn't. They say it isn't necessarily possible, but not self-contradictory as far as we know. It's good that you aren't going to debate this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
- SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
  You failed reading comprehension.
  - kragen 1y ago
    You think I'm the one who's failing here? You said: "(...) if you had AGI tomorrow and asked it to figure out FTL warp drives, it would just explain to you how it's not going to happen. It is impossible, the end. In fact the request is fantasy, nigh nonsensical and self-contradictory." "Isn’t that what the greatest minds in physics would say as well? Yes, yes it is." That is not in fact what the greatest minds in physics would say. Your meta-knowledge of physics has failed you here, resulting in you posting embarrassing misinformation. I'm just having to correct it to prevent you from misleading anyone else.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
      You failed to realise that I'm not debating you, I'm berating you. Some people see statements like "not debating" as a personal challenge, a reason to get aggressive. Lets be clear: they are not nice people, and you don't want to be trolls like them.
      - kragen 1y ago
        Yes, I can see that you're just trolling, not debating. I appreciate the fact that you aren't debating, because I don't want to have to correct more of your misinformation. I don't think your berating is productive either, although it does demonstrate that—as you said—you are not a nice person.

regularfry 1y ago

AGI isn't a synonym for smarter-than-human.

an0malous 1y ago
What’s your point? I’m saying there’s no level of smartness that can cure cancer, the bottleneck is data and experimentation not a shortage of smartness/intelligence
- regularfry 1y ago
  And I'm saying that AGI doesn't imply a level of smartness at all.

lossolo 1y ago

Generally, I agree, but it also depends on perspective. Intelligence exists on many levels and manifests differently across species. From a monkey's standpoint, if they were capable of such reflection they might perceive themselves as the most capable creatures in their environment. Yet, humans possess cognitive abilities that go far beyond that, abstract reasoning, cumulative culture, large scale cooperation etc A chimpanzee can use tools and solve problems, but it will never construct a factory, design an iPhone, or build even a simple wooden house. Humans can, because our intelligence operates at a qualitatively different level. As humans, we can easily visualize and reason about 2D and 3D spaces, it's natural because our sensory systems evolved to navigate a 3D world. But can we truly conceive of a million dimensions, let alone visualize them? We can describe them mathematically, but not intuitively grasp them. Our brains are not built for that kind of complexity. Now imagine a form of intelligence that can directly perceive and reason about such high dimensional structures. Entirely new kinds of understanding and capabilities might emerge. If a being could fully comprehend the underlying rules of the universe, it might not need to perform physical experiments at all, it could simply simulate outcomes internally. Of course that's speculative, but it just illustrates how deeply intelligence is shaped and limited by its biological foundation.

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
> A chimpanzee can use tools and solve problems, but it will never construct a factory, design an iPhone, or build even a simple wooden house. Humans can, because our intelligence operates at a qualitatively different level. Humans existed in the world for hundreds of thousands of years before they did any of those things, with the exception of wooden hut, which took less time than that. But also wasn't instant. Your example doesn't entirely contradict the argument that it takes time and experimentation as well, that intellect isn't the only limiting factor.
- lossolo 1y ago
  My point wasn't so much about how fast humans achieved these things, but about what's possible at all given a certain cognitive architecture. Chimpanzees could live for another million years and still wouldn't build a factory, not because they don't have enough time, but because they lack the cognitive and cultural mechanisms to accumulate and transmit abstract knowledge. So I completely agree that intelligence alone isn't the only factor, it's the whole foundation.

kragen 1y ago

Eliezer’s short story “That Alien Message” providing a convincing argument that humans are cognitively limited, not data-limited, through the device of a fictional world where people think faster: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien... > Yes. There is. The theoretical limit is that every time you see 1 additional bit, it cannot be expected to eliminate more than half of the remaining hypotheses (half the remaining probability mass, rather). And that a redundant message, cannot convey more information than the compressed version of itself. Nor can a bit convey any information about a quantity, with which it has correlation exactly zero, across the probable worlds you imagine. > But nothing I've depicted this human civilization doing, even begins to approach the theoretical limits set by the formalism of Solomonoff induction. This is also a commonplace in behavioral economics; the whole foundation of the field is that people in general don't think hard enough to fully exploit the information available to them, because they don't have the time or the energy. —— Of course, that doesn't mean that great intelligence could figure out warp drives. Maybe warp drives are actually physically impossible! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive says: > A warp drive or a drive enabling space warp is a fictional superluminal (faster than the speed of light) spacecraft propulsion system in many science fiction works, most notably Star Trek,[1] and a subject of ongoing real-life physics research. (...) > The creation of such a bubble requires exotic matter—substances with negative energy density (a violation of the Weak Energy Condition). Casimir effect experiments have hinted at the existence of negative energy in quantum fields, but practical production at the required scale remains speculative. —— Cancer, however, is clearly curable, and indeed often cured nowadays. It wouldn't be terribly surprising if we already had enough data to figure out how to solve it the rest of the time. We already have complete genomes for many species, AlphaFold has solved the protein-folding problem, research oncology studies routinely sequence tumors nowadays, and IHEC says they already have "comprehensive sets of reference epigenomes", so with enough computational power, or more efficient simulation algorithms, we could probably simulate an entire human body much faster than real time with enough fidelity to simulate cancer, thus enabling us to test candidate drug molecules against a particular cancer instantly. Also, of course, once you can build reliable nanobots, you can just program them to kill a particular kind of cancer cell, then inject them. Understanding this does not require believing that "intelligence that can solve every problem when it reaches a sufficient level, regardless of what data and resources it has to work with", which I think is a strawman you have made up. It doesn't even require believing that sufficient intelligence can solve every problem if it has sufficient data and resources to work with. It only requires understanding that being able to do the same thing regular humans do, but much faster, would be sufficient to cure cancer. —— There does seem to be an open question about how general intelligence is. We know that there isn't much difference in intelligence between people; 90+% of the human population can learn to write a computer program, make a pit-fired pot from clay, haggle in a bazaar, paint a realistic portrait, speak Chinese, fix a broken pipe, interrogate a suspect and notice when he contradicts himself, fletch an arrow, make a convincing argument in courts, program a VCR, write poetry, solve a Rubik's cube, make a béchamel sauce, weave a cloth, sing a five-minute lullaby, sew a seam, or machine a screw thread on a lathe. (They might not be able to learn all of them, because it depends on what they spend time on.) And, as far as we know, no other animal species can do any of those things: not chimpanzees, not dolphins, not octopodes, not African grey parrots. And most of them aren't instinctive activities even in humans—many didn't exist 1000 years ago, and some didn't exist even 100 years ago. So humans clearly have some fairly flexible facility that these other species lack. "Intelligence" is the usual name for that facility. But it's not perfectly general. For example, it involves some degree of ability to imagine three-dimensional space. Some of the humans can also reason about four- or five-dimensional spaces, but this is a much slower and more difficult process, far out of proportion to the underlying mathematical difficulty of the problem. And it's plausible that this is beyond the cognitive ability of large parts of the population. And maybe there are other problems that some other sort of intelligence would find easy, but which the humans don't even notice because it's incomprehensible to them.