[easypokergonj]

I hope that at some point people will stop writing code (software). If there is an AI that is as smart as a human but 1 million times faster then it should have enough time to write bug free optimised code.
I am so looking forward to ATI hiring a robot to write some decent drivers...

[SodeSceriobia]

:drool: I can't wait to find out what AI thinks of us. Keep or Destroy?

[Slintreeoost]

It's not just scale. You can have an infinite chess pieces and an infinite square tiles. The real question is, can we create intelligence that is not random or meaningless.

[mv37afnr]

A self-replicating/improving AI would design its replacement twice as quickly and with ten times the bugs of a team of human engineers. The Eschaton will be so riddled with viruses that it will solely dedicate its nigh-infinite processing power towards the accumulation of penis enlargement pills.

.

[GoblinGaga]

Maybe the real question is whether human intelligence is meaningful or not, which is back to a debate from another thread a few weeks ago.

[Duaceanceksm]

One of the major problems with the whole singularity business is that the brain is relatively robust while a digital computer is relatively brittle (even leaving aside the undecidability of bug removal). Brain cells die and synapses misfire all the time, but we still manage to more or less function. On the other hand a single transient memory fault can crash a supercomputer.

RE the difference between human intelligence and computational intelligence, human-computer chess games are a good example of the disconnect: human chess masters only look one or two moves ahead in a chess game and mostly focus on board patterns (try to maximize space covered by a bishop etc.), while chess-playing supercomputers look ahead several moves with fancy heuristics to trim the search space.

[zCLadw3R]

The whole point about a true AI is that it's concious and can choose it's own goals. We don't design it with that goal necessarily. Although it's a human goal and we'd be creating it in our image to some extent so it's reasonable to assume it might have it as a goal too. Even if it's just through self improvement rather than replicating superior versions of itself.

[KlaraNovikoffaZ]

Being able to create one is an achievement in itself.

And it's not very useful if you don't give it access to stuff to control.

There's also the idea that rather than destroying humanity they enable us to transcend and become godlike, so not all doom and gloom.

[Spisivavona]

The whole point about a true AI is that it's concious and can choose it's own goals.

Bzzt. The whole point about a general-purpose AI ("true" AI has no meaning) is that it has humanlike intelligence - you can provide it with natural-language goals and it has all the tools to complete them built-in.

If the AI is strictly smarter than people, and we tell it "design a general-purpose AI smarter than yourself", it will clearly succeed (if only by epsilon).

Seriously, guys, that's all there is to it. Self-design + smarter than humans = strictly increasing intelligence.

edit: and again, seriously, consciousness doesn't enter into it. No one cares about consciousness. People care about getting **** done.

[oscilsoda]

(if only by epsilon)

[saruxanset]

edit: and again, seriously, consciousness doesn't enter into it. No one cares about consciousness. People care about getting **** done.

You're assuming that all the folks who jerk off to SMAC don't qualify as "people." Not that I necessarily disagree; just pointing it out.

[sjdflghd]

The processes of intelligence are very simple, it's just a question of scale, so why should there be a limit?

Didn't know inteligence was a simple matter of scale, thought it was more complex. I guess my question is moot then.

[Wr8dIAUk]

The whole point about a true AI is that it's concious and can choose it's own goals.

Are you sure? I'm not quite convinced we humans can choose our goals.


I mean seriusly even the most ethical and rational human would have problems with not eating a baby or two now or then if that somehow produced feelings that make orgasms pale in comparison.

[dabibibff]

Or self-design + smarter than humans + design complexity increasing faster than intelligence = intelligence plateau.

Isn't this what I basically said in the OP?

[CtEkM8Vq]

Isn't this what I basically said in the OP?

You said it all foreign-like.

[AdipexAdipex]

That's basically what heroin does. Solution: don't shoot heroin, ever, nor eat a baby.

But what if taking heroin or eating babies would be like sex? You could easily make a mind want something that it has never tried before.

[alegsghed]

But what if taking heroin or eating babies would be like sex? You could easily make a mind want something that it has never tried before.

I have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to have sex. Do you have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to eat babies?

[bZEUWO4F]

Hera: your hypothesis relies not only on the idea that it will be hard for a general-purpose AI to design marginal improvements to its own code (implausible) but also that said AI will not scale at all with processing speed or # of processors.

AI is an app, it will scale with processing speed or # of proccesors in the sense that it will run faster at the very least.

Tell me if they lock you up in a room for a hundred years with a few terbytes of intormation that details how your body and mind work. Could you build draw up the schematics for a couple of better humans? I'm not saying you couldn't. I'm just saying that a man trapped in a lamp that experiences 100 yeras of time pass for every one that does in RT dosen't sound scary. Now a small societ of such people might be.

But when does a society of 1000 acheive as much in a century as does a society of 6-10 billion people in a year? What I'm saying is that the first few generations of AI will probably be designed and improved by a ant-swarm of humans rather than the first & few human or even superhuman level AI's.


The TS people seem to think or at least speak as if the first AI will result in an inteligence explosion. They don't realize that simply the rise in global population and especialy the rise in educated people is already an intelligence explosion. A small population of AI's won't speed up the process anymore than if a few talented humans are born. A genious level AI, is still just that genious level.


The only advantage it has over a human genious is that we can make it so that it enjoys its job. A lot.

[Anakattawl]

Rapture for nerds, indeed.

why should there be a limit? I don't believe it's possible for humans to create by themselves something that's more intelligent.

[Futfwrca]

Not necessarily.

I think the reason you believe that is that we've not yet figured out how to write intelligence into a computer. Your picture of hardware development is of an autistic savant getting faster and faster at multiplying two numbers in his head. If a regular person was magically granted the ability to keep twice as many facts in his head, manipulate twice as many pieces of information at once, and do this all twice as fast, would you not say that he had gotten more intelligent?