= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nornagest comments on The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ - 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 (267)
I admit, I stopped reading the linked paper when I saw the page count, but I don't see why you're rejecting decades of 60<IQ<100 AIs as implausible (uninteresting is another matter, but some people are interested). An IQ70 AI is little more able to self-improve than a IQ70 human is able to improve an AI. Even an IQ120 human would have trouble with that. The task of bringing AIs from IQ60 to IQ140 where they can start meaningfully contributing to AI research falls to IQ180 humans, and will probably take a long time.
Not that talking about the IQ of an AI makes a whole lot of sense -- mindspace is many-dimensional and no AI is likely to land on the human manifold. But as a very, very crude approximation, it will do here.
This is not obviously true. We're a lot less well optimized for improving code than some conceivable AIs can be: a seed AI with relatively modest general intelligence but very good self-modification heuristics might still end up knocking our socks off.
That said, there's a much larger design space where this isn't the case.
Human programmers at IQ 70 also can't be run anywhere near as fast as AI programmers at IQ 70.