You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

curiousepic comments on IntelligenceExplosion.com - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: lukeprog 07 August 2011 05:46PM

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

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: curiousepic 07 August 2011 05:58:41PM 7 points [-]

I don't care for the graphic - it doesn't really get the idea across very well, and its composition and quality is kind of grating. IMO, at the moment, having no graphic is preferable.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 07 August 2011 06:04:03PM 1 point [-]

Agreed. Even with a decent grasp on the concept it's supposed to be showing, it took me a while to figure out what it was trying to show. The arrow from the brain to the brain in particular doesn't seem to click. (If you really want a graphical representation along that line, something with a bubble moving along the arrow and into the brain, and the brain expanding as the bubble dissolves, would probably work better.)

Comment author: lukeprog 07 August 2011 10:33:58PM 0 points [-]

Anybody have an idea for how to represent intelligence explosion graphically?

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 07 August 2011 11:03:21PM 3 points [-]

The concept you're trying to convey might become more obvious if you used thought bubbles instead of arrows. Have the humans imagine the artificial brain, and it appears; then have the artificial brain imagine a bigger version of itself, and it grows; and so forth. (This will involve more frames in a larger .gif, but I think it will make the process clearer.)

Comment author: omslin 07 August 2011 11:42:34PM 2 points [-]

Animated GIFs look unprofessional.

Comment author: lukeprog 08 August 2011 01:00:48AM *  2 points [-]

That is a problem. What do ya'll think of the new image?

Comment author: steven0461 08 August 2011 07:23:00PM *  8 points [-]

It doesn't make as much sense without the context of showing the parochial human picture first, and I'm worried that without that context it'll just come across as hyperbole. "The AI will be thiiiiiiiiiiis much smarter than Einstein!!!" It also suggests too strong a connection between recursive self-improvement and a specific level of intelligence.

Comment author: shokwave 08 August 2011 03:11:12AM 1 point [-]

Like. The big problem in explaining intelligence explosions is not explaining the process - in my experience, people grasp the process very intuitively from even my unclear explanations. The big problem is communicating the end result: recursive self-improvement takes AI off the far end of the human scale of intelligence. (The process might only be disputed as a way to reject the end result.) This image does a lot of that work right away.

Comment author: dbaupp 08 August 2011 08:03:43AM 1 point [-]

Where's EY?

(More seriously: that image looks much nicer)

Comment author: steven0461 07 August 2011 10:51:11PM 1 point [-]

Probably too silly to use here, but one thing that comes to mind is a brain reshaped to have the form of a nuclear mushroom.

Comment author: Incorrect 08 August 2011 01:58:42AM 1 point [-]

That might be misinterpreted to mean "mind blowing."

Comment author: Manfred 07 August 2011 11:23:39PM 1 point [-]

Maybe has the wrong connotations :P

Comment author: Incorrect 08 August 2011 01:55:18AM *  0 points [-]

(λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x))) {image of a brain}

Comment author: Alex_Altair 08 August 2011 11:32:18PM 0 points [-]

What lambda expression grows exponentially with each evaluation?

Comment author: Incorrect 08 August 2011 11:43:23PM 1 point [-]

It's called the Y combinator. If evaluated lazily it wont necessarily run forever.