4 ms·

Singularity is BS because there's no such thing as "machine surpassing human intelligence". Human intelligence is not a one dimensional measurement that can be

Singularity is BS because there's no such thing as "machine surpassing human intelligence". Human intelligence is not a one dimensional measurement that can be "surpassed". There's not much challenge to write AI that surpasses all humans in IQ tests. You can't even say if one human surpassed other human in intelligence, how are you gonna measure machine? In the same way every one of us are intelligent in some specific areas, AIs are and will be intelligent in their own. We, humans, only have many things in common, because we all have the same body, that makes us to have the same physical needs and what results in relatable experiences that we call "common sense". If we, you an I, didn't have same types of bodies, even if we both could speak english, we could barely understand each other. That's why there will never be a point where AI will become "unpredictable". It's just pop culture meme for people that don't want to think it through the details, sitting in the same page with UFO, spirits and other I want to believe crap.

grondilu 13y ago
> You can't even say if one human surpassed other human in intelligence, how are you gonna measure machine? It's not because something is difficult to measure that it does not exist(1). Even if you don't believe in IQ tests, you gotta admit that those people Google just hired are more intelligent than the average Joe. They sure are more intelligent than me anyway. Probably more intelligent than you as well. In the same way, the idea that one day a machine could be more intelligent than any human being would be very real the day a machine will write scientific papers, program its own code, design high-tech devices, win a Nobel price and stuff like that. This machine would be more intelligent than Demis Hassabis (the founder of DeepMind) for exactly the same reasons that I can say that Demis Hassabis is more intelligent than me: he does more intelligent things. 1: for example, the famous conundrum "how long is the coast of Britain?" does not suggest that Britain has no coast.
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  > It's not because something is difficult to measure that it does not exist(1). No, I don't say that it doesn't exists. What I say is that intelligence is not something to be expressed in one number, it doesn't work that way. Intelligence is more like NxN matrix of numbers, where each number in a matrix represent individual skill in some specific task. As for your example of Google employee and average Joe, what you mean by more intelligent is that the sum of all of that NxN matrix number for that employee is larger than of the average Joe. However if you take some particular numbers, Joe might still have them higher. For the simplest example the average Joe will know his house better than the Google employee who hasn't even been at Joe's house. And the same is for AI, just the number of that supposed intelligence matrix will be completely different than that of human. AI without human body, human body needs and without hormones to control his behavior will never be anything like human to be compared to them. So in the end what you say I also think is true, especially about machines writing scientific papers and generally doing science already out of grasp for human mind. My problem I guess is the measurement problem. If someone would say "singularity will be when machines will manipulate mathematical concepts and invent/discover and prove theorems that no human mathematician alive can understand" I would agree. But if they say "machine is more intelligent than any human" I can't agree. That statement makes as much sense as statement "singularity will be when apples will be more fruit than any banana".
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > What I say is that intelligence is not something to be expressed in one number, it doesn't work that way. But nobody in the singularity field says that intelligence is one-dimensional quality! It's a strawman. It reminds me of a common accusation that "computer people" have subpar worldview because they "reason in 0s and 1s, and the world is not binary", to which I say that actually "computer people"'s view is superior because they figured that out long ago and developed proper methods to quantify and deal with uncertainty. > Intelligence is more like NxN matrix of numbers, where each number in a matrix represent individual skill in some specific task. This is also not a good model, because what we usually mean by intelligence are reasoning capabilities, not e.g. motor skills. You don't say about a surgeon that he is smart, because he can manipulate a blade with great precision; we say he's exceptionally skilled. > For the simplest example the average Joe will know his house better than the Google employee who hasn't even been at Joe's house. Put Average Joe and Google Employee a house they have never seen before and see which one will learn how to navigate faster - that's a way to measure intelligence. Not the knowledge, but the ability to process and use it. > If someone would say "singularity will be when machines will manipulate mathematical concepts and invent/discover and prove theorems that no human mathematician alive can understand" I would agree. But if they say "machine is more intelligent than any human" I can't agree. Saying "machine more intelligent than human" is just a shortcut for saying "machine that is able to reason about the world faster, better, with less biases than human; which will manipulate mental concepts and prove theorems out of reach for humans, as well as invent better technology, tackle human social problems better than humans do, etc. etd.".
    - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
      > This is also not a good model, because what we usually mean by intelligence are reasoning capabilities, not e.g. motor skills. Yes, the model is not good, I agree. But your understanding of intelligence incorrectly. You think that intelligence is a rate of learning. Or in neuroscience terms, brain plasticity. So, first, plasticity is largest at birth and gradually decreases as brain matures. This means that newborn would be "more intelligent" than 50yo man. Secondly, a fast rate of learning is not necessarily a good thing. If you ever worked with neural networks, you'd know that when training it, you can adjust at what rate the weights in artificial neurons would change. If you make fast rate, for one, network quickly overlearns, meaning he becomes too specialized and adjusted to exact cases he experienced, and secondly, it can quickly "forget" what he has learned. Slow learning rate makes it longer to learn, but also is more "stubborn" and doesn't give of on old beliefs so easily either. On the other hand, as you said, knowledge also does not mean intelligence. If it cannot learn from it's mistakes, it is surely not intelligent. So I'd say intelligence is a combination of experience and plasticity. > Saying "machine more intelligent than human" is just a shortcut for saying "machine that is able to reason about the world faster, better, with less biases than human; which will manipulate mental concepts and prove theorems out of reach for humans, as well as invent better technology, tackle human social problems better than humans do, etc. etd.". So in the other words machine becoming more proficient in some very specific skill or multiple skills. Yes, that is common sense. It's not that I disagree with the core idea of singularity, I just find it pointless and unnecessary. Some might say "it brings attention to the field", but I'm not really sure it helps AI research, since it attracts the wrong kind of people that would make actual research.

grondilu 13y ago

> You can't even say if one human surpassed other human in intelligence, how are you gonna measure machine? It's not because something is difficult to measure that it does not exist(1). Even if you don't believe in IQ tests, you gotta admit that those people Google just hired are more intelligent than the average Joe. They sure are more intelligent than me anyway. Probably more intelligent than you as well. In the same way, the idea that one day a machine could be more intelligent than any human being would be very real the day a machine will write scientific papers, program its own code, design high-tech devices, win a Nobel price and stuff like that. This machine would be more intelligent than Demis Hassabis (the founder of DeepMind) for exactly the same reasons that I can say that Demis Hassabis is more intelligent than me: he does more intelligent things. 1: for example, the famous conundrum "how long is the coast of Britain?" does not suggest that Britain has no coast.

cLeEOGPw 13y ago
> It's not because something is difficult to measure that it does not exist(1). No, I don't say that it doesn't exists. What I say is that intelligence is not something to be expressed in one number, it doesn't work that way. Intelligence is more like NxN matrix of numbers, where each number in a matrix represent individual skill in some specific task. As for your example of Google employee and average Joe, what you mean by more intelligent is that the sum of all of that NxN matrix number for that employee is larger than of the average Joe. However if you take some particular numbers, Joe might still have them higher. For the simplest example the average Joe will know his house better than the Google employee who hasn't even been at Joe's house. And the same is for AI, just the number of that supposed intelligence matrix will be completely different than that of human. AI without human body, human body needs and without hormones to control his behavior will never be anything like human to be compared to them. So in the end what you say I also think is true, especially about machines writing scientific papers and generally doing science already out of grasp for human mind. My problem I guess is the measurement problem. If someone would say "singularity will be when machines will manipulate mathematical concepts and invent/discover and prove theorems that no human mathematician alive can understand" I would agree. But if they say "machine is more intelligent than any human" I can't agree. That statement makes as much sense as statement "singularity will be when apples will be more fruit than any banana".
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > What I say is that intelligence is not something to be expressed in one number, it doesn't work that way. But nobody in the singularity field says that intelligence is one-dimensional quality! It's a strawman. It reminds me of a common accusation that "computer people" have subpar worldview because they "reason in 0s and 1s, and the world is not binary", to which I say that actually "computer people"'s view is superior because they figured that out long ago and developed proper methods to quantify and deal with uncertainty. > Intelligence is more like NxN matrix of numbers, where each number in a matrix represent individual skill in some specific task. This is also not a good model, because what we usually mean by intelligence are reasoning capabilities, not e.g. motor skills. You don't say about a surgeon that he is smart, because he can manipulate a blade with great precision; we say he's exceptionally skilled. > For the simplest example the average Joe will know his house better than the Google employee who hasn't even been at Joe's house. Put Average Joe and Google Employee a house they have never seen before and see which one will learn how to navigate faster - that's a way to measure intelligence. Not the knowledge, but the ability to process and use it. > If someone would say "singularity will be when machines will manipulate mathematical concepts and invent/discover and prove theorems that no human mathematician alive can understand" I would agree. But if they say "machine is more intelligent than any human" I can't agree. Saying "machine more intelligent than human" is just a shortcut for saying "machine that is able to reason about the world faster, better, with less biases than human; which will manipulate mental concepts and prove theorems out of reach for humans, as well as invent better technology, tackle human social problems better than humans do, etc. etd.".
  - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
    > This is also not a good model, because what we usually mean by intelligence are reasoning capabilities, not e.g. motor skills. Yes, the model is not good, I agree. But your understanding of intelligence incorrectly. You think that intelligence is a rate of learning. Or in neuroscience terms, brain plasticity. So, first, plasticity is largest at birth and gradually decreases as brain matures. This means that newborn would be "more intelligent" than 50yo man. Secondly, a fast rate of learning is not necessarily a good thing. If you ever worked with neural networks, you'd know that when training it, you can adjust at what rate the weights in artificial neurons would change. If you make fast rate, for one, network quickly overlearns, meaning he becomes too specialized and adjusted to exact cases he experienced, and secondly, it can quickly "forget" what he has learned. Slow learning rate makes it longer to learn, but also is more "stubborn" and doesn't give of on old beliefs so easily either. On the other hand, as you said, knowledge also does not mean intelligence. If it cannot learn from it's mistakes, it is surely not intelligent. So I'd say intelligence is a combination of experience and plasticity. > Saying "machine more intelligent than human" is just a shortcut for saying "machine that is able to reason about the world faster, better, with less biases than human; which will manipulate mental concepts and prove theorems out of reach for humans, as well as invent better technology, tackle human social problems better than humans do, etc. etd.". So in the other words machine becoming more proficient in some very specific skill or multiple skills. Yes, that is common sense. It's not that I disagree with the core idea of singularity, I just find it pointless and unnecessary. Some might say "it brings attention to the field", but I'm not really sure it helps AI research, since it attracts the wrong kind of people that would make actual research.