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.

Article Navigation

Comments (51)
Tags: general_intelligence agi ai

Comments (51)

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

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit