The main flaw in superintelligence arguments is to think of intelligence as an intrinsic property of an agent, like the height of a tower.
-
The root of these issues is the lack of a proper definition for intelligence.
It is difficult to argue that super-X is coming, and is dangerous, if you do not know what X is.
-
-
Absence of exact definition is no identical to absence of knowledge
-
it's a sign of an absence of scientific knowledge
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This could be X for AI : https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
do you think there is an explicit limit of intelligence?
-
Yes, there are several computational and physical limits.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
For millennia people didn't know what fire was (as in how to define it) but we're still afraid of forest fires. ;)
-
Lack of a precise definition doesn't employ that we can't foresee consequences. Intelligence is certainly not scalar (unidimensional)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you define intelligence as a specifying parameter that typifies entities as being particular instances of a monotonic general equation,
-
then arguments of absolute dominance make sense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.