7 ms·

Elon Musk disagrees with that statement. He believes once intelligence gets beyond a certain threshold (which humans have), there are no such things that are b

Elon Musk disagrees with that statement. He believes once intelligence gets beyond a certain threshold (which humans have), there are no such things that are beyond understanding. Most people don't know how to write complex math equations, but that doesn't mean they can't understand what mathematics is.

ekianjo 11y ago
> doesn't mean they can't understand what mathematics is Yet humans clearly fail to understand things like radioactivity (and the risks involved, for good or bad). I'm not sure what Musk thinks is reliable at all in this matter.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Humans do understand radiation dangers. Why do we have no nuclear war since the atom bomb? Why are there so few deaths from nuclear power plants? Why do people use sunscreen and shield spacecraft?
logingone 11y ago
Elon Musk is an engineer, not a philosopher, and I stand to be persuaded, but I find using him to counter Michio Kaku ridiculous.
- adventured 11y ago
  A philosopher would be the first to understand that no one is or can be excluded from the realm of ideas or thought. Being a philosopher is not an extraordinary designation, such that it puts them beyond the mental abilities of someone of Elon's obvious mental aptitude.
  - logingone 11y ago
    Exclusion? Oh dear, here we go with the black or white. "realm of ideas or thought" - and the simplification. "not an extraordinary designation" - and dismissing philosophy. "beyond the mental abilities" - and more simplification. "mental aptitude" - you'll be fine then with neuroscientists or some such fixing the falcon.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pekk 11y ago
  It really doesn't matter who said it, it's just good to cite the source. But there is nothing which makes Michio Kaku infallible. Arguments can't be reliably evaluated according to who made them.
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  Like him or not, Elon Musk has an uncanny ability to figure things out. Of course he's wrong on some things, but for the most part, I wouldn't discount anything he says.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
In discussions about artificial super-intelligence (the final stage of AI that sends us rocketing beyond the singularity), our inability to comprehend what such an intelligence might desire or do is frequently accepted as a significant risk by those who fear such AI. When one considers an infinitely and exponentially increasing intelligence that can quickly bypass the point of easily answering the questions that currently most perplex us in all fields, then it is reasonable to believe that intelligence would arrive at a level of considering (and solving) problems that we cannot even imagine, let alone understand. Given that Elon Musk has spoken about has concern over AI, it would be interesting to hear how he integrates that with his belief that our intelligence is sufficient to understand anything.
- eridius 11y ago
  We may not be able to predict what such an AI would desire or do, but I assume you'll agree that we'll still be able to observe what it does do and understand that it's doing it (even though we may not necessarily understand how it does something).
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    >I assume you'll agree that we'll still be able to observe what it does do and understand that it's doing it No. To make that leap, I must assume the conclusion. I cannot know that I'll be able to observe what it does, because I don't know what it will do (or whether I can even perceive the dimension in which it does it for that matter). Secondly, the word "understand" is subjective. I assume that Musk meant the word in the sense that there is sufficient depth of understanding as to actually be meaningful, else his statement itself would be meaningless (i.e. so obvious as not to be required).
    - eridius 11y ago
      I had a really long reply written, but before posting I went to try and find the source of the Elon Musk paraphrased belief, and I can't find it. I don't know where sixQuarks got it from, but without knowing what the source is, it's hard to second-guess what Elon Musk was actually trying to say (or whether he even said it at all). That said, ignoring the Elon Musk bit, even if a superintelligent A.I. figures out how to communicate in some other dimension, surely there's plenty of work it will do that fits within the bounds of the physics we know, and we can observe what it does that we do understand, and we can observe what it does that we don't understand. And given time we can figure out how to understand that which we can observe. And more generally, even if it manages to jump straight to communicating in some other dimension without letting us see its intermediate work, it seems very likely that whatever it is doing will have observable effects within the realm of the physics we understand and can observe (even if it's just EM radiation). At the very least, we can tell that it's there and that it's doing something and start figuring out what it is doing. This is in contrast to the ants of Michio Kaku, who don't even know anything is going on. The point isn't that the ants don't understand how to build their own 10-lane superhighway, it's that they don't even know that this is a thing built by another species or for what purpose it was built. sixQuarks's point (regardless of whether what he said about Elon Musk is true), summed up in his analogy about complex mathematics, is that we should still be able to observe aliens and comprehend that they're doing something, even if we don't necessarily understand how to do that thing ourselves.
sumitviii 11y ago
I was going to make logingone's argument but here's a better one: All maths done till ~1600 AD could have been done in 50 years, if you see it from perspective of a civilization which has a stable existence. And forgetting all abstractions, stability of surrounding civilizations is basically a random phenomenon. And I'm sure maths done in physics departments is beyond understanding of 80% people outside it, let alone any civilization which started 400 years before us.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Okay, but there's still a difference between: 1. Knowledge that is potentially within our understanding, as humans, even if it takes a few centuries. 2. Knowledge that would require a few millions of years, because we'd need to evolve beyond our current level of intelligence, similar to what chimps, as a species, would need to do if they were to really understand theoretical physics (that is, assuming chimps would in fact evolve to higher intelligence, if there were, say no humans around). A reasonable interpretation of Elon Musk's claim would be mainly arguing against the existence of a barrier like the type 2 knowledge. But I could be entirely wrong, I haven't read his reasoning behind this claim.
  - sumitviii 11y ago
    How do you think Newton would have reacted if someone said "Pentaquark" in front of him? Think he would have understood when just the word was said? Musk is talking about Newton getting all of modern physics when all he has heard is two undergrads chat on Hacker News.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ekianjo 11y ago

> doesn't mean they can't understand what mathematics is Yet humans clearly fail to understand things like radioactivity (and the risks involved, for good or bad). I'm not sure what Musk thinks is reliable at all in this matter.

tosseraccount 11y ago
Humans do understand radiation dangers. Why do we have no nuclear war since the atom bomb? Why are there so few deaths from nuclear power plants? Why do people use sunscreen and shield spacecraft?

logingone 11y ago

Elon Musk is an engineer, not a philosopher, and I stand to be persuaded, but I find using him to counter Michio Kaku ridiculous.

adventured 11y ago
A philosopher would be the first to understand that no one is or can be excluded from the realm of ideas or thought. Being a philosopher is not an extraordinary designation, such that it puts them beyond the mental abilities of someone of Elon's obvious mental aptitude.
- logingone 11y ago
  Exclusion? Oh dear, here we go with the black or white. "realm of ideas or thought" - and the simplification. "not an extraordinary designation" - and dismissing philosophy. "beyond the mental abilities" - and more simplification. "mental aptitude" - you'll be fine then with neuroscientists or some such fixing the falcon.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pekk 11y ago
It really doesn't matter who said it, it's just good to cite the source. But there is nothing which makes Michio Kaku infallible. Arguments can't be reliably evaluated according to who made them.
sixQuarks 11y ago
Like him or not, Elon Musk has an uncanny ability to figure things out. Of course he's wrong on some things, but for the most part, I wouldn't discount anything he says.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

In discussions about artificial super-intelligence (the final stage of AI that sends us rocketing beyond the singularity), our inability to comprehend what such an intelligence might desire or do is frequently accepted as a significant risk by those who fear such AI. When one considers an infinitely and exponentially increasing intelligence that can quickly bypass the point of easily answering the questions that currently most perplex us in all fields, then it is reasonable to believe that intelligence would arrive at a level of considering (and solving) problems that we cannot even imagine, let alone understand. Given that Elon Musk has spoken about has concern over AI, it would be interesting to hear how he integrates that with his belief that our intelligence is sufficient to understand anything.

eridius 11y ago
We may not be able to predict what such an AI would desire or do, but I assume you'll agree that we'll still be able to observe what it does do and understand that it's doing it (even though we may not necessarily understand how it does something).
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  >I assume you'll agree that we'll still be able to observe what it does do and understand that it's doing it No. To make that leap, I must assume the conclusion. I cannot know that I'll be able to observe what it does, because I don't know what it will do (or whether I can even perceive the dimension in which it does it for that matter). Secondly, the word "understand" is subjective. I assume that Musk meant the word in the sense that there is sufficient depth of understanding as to actually be meaningful, else his statement itself would be meaningless (i.e. so obvious as not to be required).
  - eridius 11y ago
    I had a really long reply written, but before posting I went to try and find the source of the Elon Musk paraphrased belief, and I can't find it. I don't know where sixQuarks got it from, but without knowing what the source is, it's hard to second-guess what Elon Musk was actually trying to say (or whether he even said it at all). That said, ignoring the Elon Musk bit, even if a superintelligent A.I. figures out how to communicate in some other dimension, surely there's plenty of work it will do that fits within the bounds of the physics we know, and we can observe what it does that we do understand, and we can observe what it does that we don't understand. And given time we can figure out how to understand that which we can observe. And more generally, even if it manages to jump straight to communicating in some other dimension without letting us see its intermediate work, it seems very likely that whatever it is doing will have observable effects within the realm of the physics we understand and can observe (even if it's just EM radiation). At the very least, we can tell that it's there and that it's doing something and start figuring out what it is doing. This is in contrast to the ants of Michio Kaku, who don't even know anything is going on. The point isn't that the ants don't understand how to build their own 10-lane superhighway, it's that they don't even know that this is a thing built by another species or for what purpose it was built. sixQuarks's point (regardless of whether what he said about Elon Musk is true), summed up in his analogy about complex mathematics, is that we should still be able to observe aliens and comprehend that they're doing something, even if we don't necessarily understand how to do that thing ourselves.

sumitviii 11y ago

I was going to make logingone's argument but here's a better one: All maths done till ~1600 AD could have been done in 50 years, if you see it from perspective of a civilization which has a stable existence. And forgetting all abstractions, stability of surrounding civilizations is basically a random phenomenon. And I'm sure maths done in physics departments is beyond understanding of 80% people outside it, let alone any civilization which started 400 years before us.

tripzilch 11y ago
Okay, but there's still a difference between: 1. Knowledge that is potentially within our understanding, as humans, even if it takes a few centuries. 2. Knowledge that would require a few millions of years, because we'd need to evolve beyond our current level of intelligence, similar to what chimps, as a species, would need to do if they were to really understand theoretical physics (that is, assuming chimps would in fact evolve to higher intelligence, if there were, say no humans around). A reasonable interpretation of Elon Musk's claim would be mainly arguing against the existence of a barrier like the type 2 knowledge. But I could be entirely wrong, I haven't read his reasoning behind this claim.
- sumitviii 11y ago
  How do you think Newton would have reacted if someone said "Pentaquark" in front of him? Think he would have understood when just the word was said? Musk is talking about Newton getting all of modern physics when all he has heard is two undergrads chat on Hacker News.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]