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.

Wei_Dai comments on The metaphor/myth of general intelligence - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 August 2014 04:04PM

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

Comments (51)

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

Comment author: Wei_Dai 19 August 2014 06:54:02PM 4 points [-]

So humans are poor general intelligences in any objective sense we can measure it.

This may be a logical consequence of "a minimum of understanding and planning go a long way". As evolution slowly increases the intelligence of some species, at some point a threshold is crossed and technological explosion happens. If "a minimum of understanding and planning go a long way" then this happens pretty early, when that species can still be considered poor general intelligences on an absolute scale. This is one of the reasons why Eliezer thinks that superhuman general intelligence may not be that hard to achieve, if I understand correctly.

Addressed the more general point in the model added to the top post.

The added part is interesting. I'll try to respond separately.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 20 August 2014 10:45:43AM *  1 point [-]

This is one of the reasons why Eliezer thinks that superhuman general intelligence may not be that hard to achieve, if I understand correctly.

That needs a somewhat stronger result, "a minimum increment of understanding and planning go a long way further". And that's partially what I'm wondering about here.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 20 August 2014 06:35:52PM *  2 points [-]

That needs a somewhat stronger result, "a minimum increment of understanding and planning go a long way further". And that's partially what I'm wondering about here.

The example of humans up to von Neumann shows there's not much diminishing returns to general intelligence in a fairly broad range. It would be surprising if diminishing returns sets in right above von Neumann's level, and if that's true I think there would have to be some explanation for it.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 August 2014 12:56:51PM *  1 point [-]

Humans are known to have correlations between their different types of intelligence (the supposed "g"). But this seems to no be a genuine general intelligence (eg a mathematician using maths to successfully model human relations), but a correlation of specialised submodules. That correlation need not exist for AIs.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 August 2014 09:33:39PM 1 point [-]

vN maybe shows there is no hard limit, but statistically there seem to be quite a lot of crazy chess grandmasterses, crazy mathematicians , crazy composers, etc.