AmandaEHouse comments on A Visualization of Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence - Less Wrong

39 Post author: AmandaEHouse 23 July 2014 12:24AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (27)

Comments (27)

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

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 22 July 2014 05:06:11PM *  6 points [-]

According to Bostrom, brain-computer interfaces are unlikely to yield superintelligence.

This strikes me as slightly surprising. From a technological standpoint, I would have thought that a hybrid of biological and machine intelligence would be likely to have the best aspects of each, by which I mean the best aspects at the time at which the BCI is created, rather than trying to posit that biological intelligence has any fundamental advantage that sufficiently advanced computers can never overcome. A fairly close analogy is how teams of a competent chessplayer and a laptop chess program can beat both the best humans and computers with far more processing power.

Admittedly I don't know much about BCI technology, but I have heard promising things about optogenetics. Having to undergo brain surgery is a problem, but the extent of this problem seems to depend upon to what extent the interface needs to penetrate into the brain rather than just overlying the surface. If bootstrapping to greater levels of intelligence required repeated surgery to install better BCIs then this might be problematic, but intelligence gains could also be realised by working on the software, or adding more hardware, or adding more people to a swarm intelligence.

Of course, in the end it would transition to a fully or mostly machine intelligence, either through offloading increasingly more cognition to the machine components until the organic brains were only a tiny fraction of the mind, or though using the increased intelligence to develop FAI/WBE. But that doesn't make BCI a dead end, so much as a transnational stage.

Finally, in the last few years, Moore's law has started to show signs of slowing, and this should cause one to update in favour of BCI coming first, as it is probably the path least dependent upon raw computing power (unless de novo AI turns out to be far more computationally efficient than the brain).

As far as social constraints go, I don't think it would be all that hard to find volunteers, and in fact there is a natural progression from treatment of blindness, mental illnesses and so forth through to transhumanism. Legal challenges are perhaps a more likely problem, but as previously mentioned, medical use will likely provide the precedent to grandfather it in.

Note I'm not saying that this is necessary a desirable path - FAI is preferable - I'm arguing it seems at least somewhat plausible to come first. Having said that, in the event that progress on FAI is slower and other existential threats loom, than BCI could perhaps be a sensible backup plan.

Comment author: AmandaEHouse 23 July 2014 05:18:37PM 10 points [-]

Here are some relevant blockquotes of Bostrom's reasoning on brain-computer interfaces, from Superintelligence chapter 2:

It is sometimes proposed that direct brain–computer interfaces, particularly implants, could enable humans to exploit the fortes of digital computing—perfect recall, speedy and accurate arithmetic calculation, and high-bandwidth data transmission—enabling the resulting hybrid system to radically outperform the unaugmented brain.64 But although the possibility of direct connections between human brains and computers has been demonstrated, it seems unlikely that such interfaces will be widely used as enhancements any time soon.65

To begin with, there are significant risks of medical complications—including infections, electrode displacement, hemorrhage, and cognitive decline—when implanting electrodes in the brain. ... One study of Parkinson patients who had received deep brain implants showed reductions in verbal fluency, selective attention, color naming, and verbal memory compared with controls. Treated subjects also reported more cognitive complaints.66 Such risks and side effects might be tolerable if the procedure is used to alleviate severe disability. But in order for healthy subjects to volunteer themselves for neurosurgery, there would have to be some very substantial enhancement of normal functionality to be gained.

Futhermore:

enhancement is likely to be far more difficult than therapy. Patients who suffer from paralysis might benefit from an implant that replaces their severed nerves or activates spinal motion pattern generators.67 Patients who are deaf or blind might benefit from artificial cochleae and retinas.68 Patients with Parkinson’s disease or chronic pain might benefit from deep brain stimulation that excites or inhibits activity in a particular area of the brain.69 What seems far more difficult to achieve is a high-bandwidth direct interaction between brain and computer to provide substantial increases in intelligence of a form that could not be more readily attained by other means. Most of the potential benefits that brain implants could provide in healthy subjects could be obtained at far less risk, expense, and inconvenience by using our regular motor and sensory organs to interact with computers located outside of our bodies. We do not need to plug a fiber optic cable into our brains in order to access the Internet.

Not only can the human retina transmit data at an impressive rate of nearly 10 million bits per second, but it comes pre-packaged with a massive amount of dedicated wetware, the visual cortex, that is highly adapted to extracting meaning from this information torrent and to interfacing with other brain areas for further processing.70 Even if there were an easy way of pumping more information into our brains, the extra data inflow would do little to increase the rate at which we think and learn unless all the neural machinery necessary for making sense of the data were similarly upgraded. Since this includes almost all of the brain, what would really be needed is a “whole brain prosthesis–—which is just another way of saying artificial general intelligence. Yet if one had a human-level AI, one could dispense with neurosurgery: a computer might as well have a metal casing as one of bone. So this limiting case just takes us back to the AI path, which we have already examined.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 July 2014 04:49:12PM *  4 points [-]

Thanks for the quotes.

To begin with, there are significant risks of medical complications—including infections, electrode displacement, hemorrhage, and cognitive decline—when implanting electrodes in the brain. ... One study of Parkinson patients who had received deep brain implants showed reductions in verbal fluency, selective attention, color naming, and verbal memory compared with controls.

I was aware that BCI would be dangerous, but I wasn't aware that current BCI, with very limited bandwidth, was already so dangerous. As I said, one could try only interfacing with the surface of the brain - the exact opposite of deep brain stimulation - which is less invasive but does massively reduce options.

Not only can the human retina transmit data at an impressive rate of nearly 10 million bits per second, but it comes pre-packaged with a massive amount of dedicated wetware, the visual cortex, that is highly adapted to extracting meaning from this information torrent and to interfacing with other brain areas for further processing.

Outgoing bandwidth, OTOH, is only a few bits per second. Better to pick the low-hanging fruit.

Coincidentally, I ran into a paper Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies which seems to claim to extract large amounts of information from the visual cortex via fMRI:

The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of the viewed movies.

Although I don't know the specifics because of the paywall.

Even if there were an easy way of pumping more information into our brains, the extra data inflow would do little to increase the rate at which we think and learn unless all the neural machinery necessary for making sense of the data were similarly upgraded. Since this includes almost all of the brain, what would really be needed is a “whole brain prosthesis–—which is just another way of saying artificial general intelligence.

As I said, I think taking information out of the brain would happen long before this scenario. But in the more futuristic case of an exocortex, there would still be a period where some parts of the brain can be emulated, but others can't, and so a hybrid system would still be superior.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 10 August 2014 02:14:32AM 2 points [-]

I noticed that you don't have a green arrow pointing from BCI to WBE or AI in your diagram. It seems like if BCIs make people smarter, that should allow them to do WBE/AI research more effectively. Thoughts?

Comment author: ChrisHibbert 26 July 2014 04:35:42PM 2 points [-]

To begin with, there are significant risks of medical complications—including infections, electrode displacement, hemorrhage, and cognitive decline—when implanting electrodes in the brain.

This is all going to change over time. (I don't know how quickly, but there is already work on trans-cranial methods that is showing promise.) If we can't get the bandwidth quickly enough, we can control infections, electrodes will get smaller and more adaptive.

enhancement is likely to be far more difficult than therapy.

Admittedly, therapy will come first. That also means that therapy will drive development of techniques that will also be helpful for enhancement. The boundary between the two is blurry, and therapies that shade into enhancement will definitely be developed before pure enhancement, and be easier to sell to end users. For example, for some people, treatment of ADHD spectrum disorders will definitely be therapeutic, while for others it be seen as attractive enhancements.

Not only can the human retina transmit data at an impressive rate of nearly 10 million bits per second, but it comes pre-packaged with a massive amount of dedicated wetware, the visual cortex, that is highly adapted to extracting meaning from this information torrent and to interfacing with other brain areas for further processing.70 Even if there were an easy way of pumping more information into our brains, the extra data inflow would do little to increase the rate at which we think and learn unless all the neural machinery necessary for making sense of the data were similarly upgraded.

The visual pathway is impressive, but it's very limited in the kinds of information it transmits. It's a poor way of encoding bulk text, for instance. Even questions and answers can be sent far more densely with a much narrower channel. A tool like Google Now that tries to anticipate areas of interest and pre-fetch data before questions arise to consciousness could provide a valuable backchannel, and it wouldn't need near the bandwidth, so ought to be doable with non-invasive trans-cranial techniques.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit