= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Intelligence explosion in organizations, or why I'm not worried about the singularity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (187)
Such an organisation can self-modify, but those modifications aren't recursive. They can't use one improvement to fuel another, they would have to come up with the next one independently (or if they could, it wouldn't be nearly to the extent that an AGI could. If you want me to go into more detail with this, let me know).
The point isn't that an AGI has or does not have certain skills. It's that it has the ability to learn those skills. Deep Blue doesn't have the capacity to learn anything other than playing chess, while humans, despite never running into a flute in the ancestral environment, can learn to play the flute.
I disagree.
Suppose an organization has developers who work in-house on their issue tracking system (there are several that do--mostly software companies).
An issue tracking system is essentially a way for an organization to manage information flow about bugs, features, and patches to its own software. The issue tracker (as a running application) coordinates between developers and the source code itself (sometimes, its own source code).
Taken as a whole, the developers, issue tracker implementation, and issue tracker source code are part of the distributed cognition of the organization.
I think that in this case, an organization's self-improvement to the issue tracker source code recursively 'fuels' other improvements to the organization's cognition.
Fair enough. But then we should hold organizations to the same standard. Suppose, for whatever reason, an organization needs better-than-median-human flute-playing for some purpose. What then?
Then they hire a skilled flute-player, right?
I think we may be arguing over an issue of semantics. I agree with you substantively that general intelligence is about adaptability, gaining and losing skills as needed.
My point in the OP was that organizations and the hypothetical AGI have comparable kinds of intelligence, so we can think about them as comparable superintelligences.
Yes, it can fuel improvement. But not to the same level that an AGI that is foom-ing would. See this thread for details: http://lesswrong.com/lw/g3m/intelligence_explosion_in_organizations_or_why_im/85zw
I agree that organizations may be seen as similar to an AGI that has supra-human intelligence in many ways, but not in their ability to self modify.
Really? It seems to me as though software companies do this all the time. Think about Eclipse, for instance. The developers of Eclipse use Eclipse to program Eclipse with. Improvements to it help them make further improvements directly.
So, the recursive self-improvement is a matter of degree? It sounds as though you now agree.
It's like the post here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/w5/cascades_cycles_insight/
It's highly unlikely a company will be able to get >1.
To me, that just sounds like confusion about the relationship between genetic and psychological evolution.
Um > 1 what. It's easy to make irrefutable predictions when what you say is vague and meaningless.
The point of the article is that if the recursion can work on itself more than a certain amount, then each new insight allows for more insights, as in the case of uranium for a nuclear bomb. > 1 refers to the average amount of improvement that an AGI that is foom-ing can gain from an insight.
What I was trying to say is the factor for corporations is much less than 1, which makes it different from an AGI. (To see this effect, try plugging in .9^x in a calculator, then 1.1^x)