Please don't just have an idea that would be cool and interesting if true, and post it to discussion. The ideas worth knowing about have at least some sort of argument that lends them plausibility.
+1
I have a theory that humans have a "good idea" detector - a black box they feed ideas into and get back "excellent!" or not. I surmise that this operates largely on its own, hence the effect where you have a brilliant idea in the middle of the night, write it down and wake up in the morning to realise it's rubbish.
Though I also think you can tune your brilliant idea detector, which may count against this theory.
But anyway, this theory suggests that the way to use its output is not merely to have the idea and find it appealing, but to ...
What do you think? There might be a theoritical limitation to how much data an AI could collect without influencing the data itself and making its prediction redundant. Would this negate the idea of a 'God' AIand cause it to make suboptimal choices even with near limitless processing power?