Why expect AGIs to be better at thinking than human beings? Is there some argument that human thinking problems are primarily due to hardware constraints? Has anyone here put much thought into parenting/educating AGIs?
Why expect AGIs to be better at thinking than human beings? Is there some argument that human thinking problems are primarily due to hardware constraints? Has anyone here put much thought into parenting/educating AGIs?
I suspect this has been answered on here before in a lot more detail, but:
Also, specifically in AI, there is some precedent for there to be only a few years between "researchers get ...
I'm getting an error trying to load Lumifer's comment in the highly nested discussion, but I can see it in my inbox, so I'll try replying here without the nesting. For this comment, I will quote everything I reply to so it stands alone better.
Isn't it convenient that I don't have to care about these infinitely many theories?
why not?
Why not what?
Why don't you have to care about the infinity of theories?
you can criticize categories, e.g. all ideas with feature X
...How can you know that every single theory in that infinity has feature X? o
Has anyone here put much thought into parenting/educating AGIs?
I'm interested in General Intelligence Augmentation, what it would be like try and build/train an artificial brain lobe and try and make it part of a normal human intelligence.
I wrote a bit on my current thoughts on how I expect to align it using training/education here but watching this presentation is necessary for context.
Because
"[the brain] is sending signals at a millionth the speed of light, firing at 100 Hz, and even in heat dissipation [...] 50000 times the thermodynamic minimum energy expenditure per binary swtich operation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUjc1WuyPT8&t=3320s
AI will be quantitatively smarter because it'll be able to think over 10000 times faster (arbitrary conservative lower bound) and it will be qualitatively smarter because its software will be built by an algoirthm far better than evolution
It doesn't really matter whether the AI uses their full computational capacity. If the AI has a 100000 times larger capacity (which is again a conservative lower bound) and it only uses 1% of it, it will still be 1000 as smart as the human's full capacity.
AGI's algorithm will be better, because it has instant access to more facts than any human has time to memorize, and it will not have all of the biases that humans have. The entire point of the sequences is to list dozens of ways that the human brain reliably fails.
If the advantage is speed, then in one year an AI that thinks 10,000x faster could be as productive as a person who lives for 10,000 years. Something like that. Or as productive as one year each from 10,000 people. But a person could live to 10,000 and not be very productive, ever. That's easy, right? Because they get stuck, unhappy, bored, superstitious ... all kinds of things can go wrong with their thinking. If AGI only has a speed advantage, that won't make it immune to dishonesty, wishful thinking, etc. Right?
Humans have fast access to facts via googl... (read more)