Strange7 comments on Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI) - Less Wrong

256 Post author: HoldenKarnofsky 11 May 2012 04:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1270)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: kalla724 17 May 2012 01:11:41AM 7 points [-]

Hm. I must be missing something. No, I haven't read all the sequences in detail, so if these are silly, basic, questions - please just point me to the specific articles that answer them.

You have an Oracle AI that is, say, a trillionfold better at taking existing data and producing inferences.

1) This Oracle AI produces inferences. It still needs to test those inferences (i.e. perform experiments) and get data that allow the next inferential cycle to commence. Without experimental feedback, the inferential chain will quickly either expand into an infinity of possibilities (i.e. beyond anything that any physically possible intelligence can consider), or it will deviate from reality. The general intelligence is only as good as the data its inferences are based upon.

Experiments take time, data analysis takes time. No matter how efficient the inferential step may become, this puts an absolute limit to the speed of growth in capability to actually change things.

2) The Oracle AI that "goes FOOM" confined to a server cloud would somehow have to create servitors capable of acting out its desires in the material world. Otherwise, you have a very angry and very impotent AI. If you increase a person's intelligence trillionfold, and then enclose them into a sealed concrete cell, they will never get out; their intelligence can calculate all possible escape solutions, but none will actually work.

Do you have a plausible scenario how a "FOOM"-ing AI could - no matter how intelligent - minimize oxygen content of our planet's atmosphere, or any such scenario? After all, it's not like we have any fully-automated nanobot production factories that could be hijacked.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 17 May 2012 01:45:28PM *  1 point [-]

Point 1 has come up in at least one form I remember. There was an interesting discussion some while back about limits to the speed of growth of new computer hardware cycles which have critical endsteps which don't seem amenable to further speedup by intelligence alone. The last stages of designing a microchip involve a large amount of layout solving, physical simulation, and then actual physical testing. These steps are actually fairly predicatable, where it takes about C amounts of computation using certain algorithms to make a new microchip, the algorithms are already best in complexity class (so further improvments will be minor), and C is increasing in a predictable fashion. These models are actually fairly detailed (see the semiconductor roadmap, for example). If I can find that discussion soon before I get distracted I'll edit it into this discussion.

Note however that 1, while interesting, isn't a fully general counteargument against a rapid intelligence explosion, because of the overhang issue if nothing else.

Point 2 has also been discussed. Humans make good 'servitors'.

Do you have a plausible scenario how a "FOOM"-ing AI could - no matter how intelligent - minimize oxygen content of our planet's atmosphere, or any such scenario?

Oh that's easy enough. Oxygen is highly reactive and unstable. Its existence on a planet is entirely dependent on complex organic processes, ie life. No life, no oxygen. Simple solution: kill large fraction of photosynthesizing earth-life. Likely paths towards goal:

  1. coordinated detonation of large number of high yield thermonuclear weapons
  2. self-replicating nanotechnology.
Comment author: Strange7 22 May 2012 11:22:16PM 0 points [-]

Wait, are we talking O2 molecules in the atmosphere, or all oxygen atoms in Earth's gravity well?

Comment author: dlthomas 22 May 2012 11:54:58PM 0 points [-]

I wish I could vote you up and down at the same time.

Comment author: Strange7 23 May 2012 12:48:39AM 1 point [-]

Please clarify the reason for your sidewaysvote.

Comment author: dlthomas 23 May 2012 01:01:34AM 1 point [-]

On the one hand a real distinction which makes a huge difference in feasibility. On the other hand, either way we're boned, so it makes not a lot of difference in the context of the original question (as I understand it). On balance, it's a cute digression but still a digression, and so I'm torn.

Comment author: Strange7 26 May 2012 05:25:26AM 1 point [-]

Actually in the case of removing all oxygen atoms from Earth's gravity well, not necessarily. The AI might decide that the most expedient method is to persuade all the humans that the sun's about to go nova, construct some space elevators and Orion Heavy Lifters, pump the first few nines of ocean water up into orbit, freeze it into a thousand-mile-long hollow cigar with a fusion rocket on one end, load the colony ship with all the carbon-based life it can find, and point the nose at some nearby potentially-habitable star. Under this scenario, it would be indifferent to our actual prospects for survival, but gain enough advantage by our willing cooperation to justify the effort of constructing an evacuation plan that can stand up to scientific analysis, and a vehicle which can actually propel the oxygenated mass out to stellar escape velocity to keep it from landing back on the surface.

Comment author: dlthomas 26 May 2012 05:45:12PM 0 points [-]

Interesting.