= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on Superintelligence 6: Intelligence explosion kinetics - 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 (67)
If you have a human-level intelligence which can read super-fast, and you set it free on the internet, it will learn a lot very quickly. (p71)
But why would you have a human-level intelligence which could read super-fast, which hadn't already read most of the internet in the process of becoming an incrementally better stupid intelligence, learning how to read?
Similarly, if your new human-level AI project used very little hardware, then you could buy heaps more cheaply. But it seems somewhat surprising if you weren't already using a lot of hardware, if it is cheap and helpful, and can replace good software to some extent.
I think there was a third example along similar lines, but I forget it.
In general, these sources of low recalcitrance would be huge if you imagine AI appearing fully formed at human-level without having exploited any of them already. But it seems to me that probably getting to human-level intelligence will involve exploiting any source of improvement we get our hands on. I'd be surprised if these ones, which don't seem to require human-level intelligence to exploit, are still sitting untouched.
It may also be worth noting that there's no particular reason to expect a full blown AI that wants to do real world things to be also the first good algorithmic optimizer (or hardware optimizer), for example. The first good algorithmic optimizer can be run on it's own source, performing an entirely abstract task, without having to do the calculations relating to it's hardware basis, the real world, and so on, which are an enormous extra hurdle.
It seems to me that the issue is that the only way some people can imagine this 'explosion' to happen is by imagining fairly anthropomorphic software which performs a task monstrously more complicated than mere algorithmic optimization "explosion" (in the sense that algorithms are replaced with their theoretically ideal counterparts, or something close. For every task there's an optimum algorithm for doing it, and you can't do better than this algorithm).