= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on Another type of intelligence explosion - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (12)
It's a consequence of that other post's idea, yes.
General intelligences are more threatening, but I don't think we can safely dismiss narrower ones in certain positions (eg the drug designing AI in this post http://lesswrong.com/lw/kte/an_example_of_deadly_nongeneral_ai/ ).
In that example you propose someone giving a thin AI with a very general goal which would require a lot of general intelligence to even understand.
If you have an AI which understands biochemistry you'd give it a goal like "design me a protein which binds to this molecule" not "maximize goodness and minimize badness"
The only way what you're proposing would work would be for it to be a general AI with merely human level abilities in most areas combined with a small number of areas of extreme expertise. that is not a thin AI or a non-general AI.
It seems the general goal could be cashed out in simple ways, with biochemistry, epidemeology, and a (potentially flawed) measure of "health".
I think you're sneaking in a lot with the measure of health. As far as I can see, the only reason its dangerous is because it caches out in the real world, on the real broad population rather than a simulation. Having the AI reason about a drugs effects on a real world population definitely seems like a general skill, not a narrow skill.