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.

D_Malik comments on What are your contrarian views? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Metus 15 September 2014 09:17AM

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

Comments (806)

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

Comment author: D_Malik 16 September 2014 09:16:11PM 9 points [-]

How smart does a mind have to be to qualify as a "superintelligence"? It's pretty clear that intelligence can go a lot higher than current levels.

What do you predict would happen if we uploaded Von Neumann's brain onto an extremely fast, planet-sized supercomputer? What do you predict would happen if we selectively bred humans for intelligence for a couple million years? "Impractical" would be understandable, but I don't see how you can believe superintelligence is "incoherent".

As for "Intelligence explosion isn't possible", that's a lot more reasonable, e.g. see the entire AI foom debate.

Comment author: Lalartu 20 September 2014 02:58:44PM 1 point [-]

Well, I will predict this

would happen if we uploaded Von Neumann's brain onto an extremely fast, planet-sized supercomputer

Very bored Von Neumann.

if we selectively bred humans for intelligence for a couple million years

People that are very good at solving tests which you use to measure intelligence.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 21 September 2014 12:34:08AM -1 points [-]

How smart does a mind have to be to qualify as a "superintelligence"? It's pretty clear that intelligence can go a lot higher than current levels.

Possibly the concept of intelligence as something that can increase in a linear fashion is in itself incoherent