= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on AIFoom Debate - conclusion? - 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 (48)
That's a terrible argument. AlphaGo represents a general approach to AI, but its instantiation on the specific problem of Go tightly constrains the problem domain and solution space. Real life is far more combinatorial still, and an AGI requires much more expensive meta-level repeated cognition as well. You don't just solve one problem, you also look at all past solved problems and think about his you could have solved those better. That's quadratic blowup.
Tl;Dr speed of narrow AI != speed of general AI.
But what if a general AI could generate specialized narrow AIs? That is something the human brain cannot do but an AGI could. Thus speed of general AI = speed of AI narrow + time to specialize.
How is it different than a general AI solving the problems by itself?
It isn't. At least not in my model of what an AI is. But Mark_Friedenbach seems to operate under a model where this is less clear or the consequences of the capability of an AI creating these kind of specialized sub agents seem not to be taken into account enough.