Greetings Samantha,
I'll not bother with detailed explanations since they are easily
dismissed with a hand wave and categorization of irrelevant.
For anyone who might be interested in the question of:
Why wouldn't a super intelligence be better able to explain the aspects
of reality? (assuming the point is providing explanation for choices.)
I've placed an example case online at
http://www.footnotestrongai.com/examples/bebillg.html
It's an "exploration" based on becoming Bill Gates, (at least having
control over his money) and how a supercomputer might offer
"explanations" given the situation. Pretty painless, easy read.
I find the values based nature of our world highly relevant to the
concept of an emerging "super brain" that will make super decisions.
Stan Nilsen
Samantha Atkins wrote:
On Dec 26, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Stan Nilsen wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
In what way? The limits of human probability computation to form
accurate opinions are rather well documented. Why wouldn't a mind
that could compute millions of times more quickly and with far
greater accuracy be able to form much more complex models that were
far better at predicting future events and explaining those aspects
of reality with are its inputs? Again we need to get beyond the
[likely religion instilled] notion that only "absolute knowledge" is
real (or "super") knowledge.
Allow me to address what I think the questions are (I'll paraphrase):
Q1. in what way are we going to be "short" of super intelligence?
resp: The simple answer is that the most intelligent of future
intelligences will not be able to make decisions that are clearly
superior to the best of human judgment. This is not to say that
weather forecasting might not improve as technology does, but meant to
say that predictions and decisions regarding the "hard" problems that
fill reality, will remain hard and defy the intelligentsia's efforts
to fully grasp them.
This is a mere assertion. Why won't such computationally much more
powerful intelligences make better decisions than humans can or will?
Q2. why wouldn't a mind with characteristics of ... be able to form
more complex models?
resp: By "more complex" I presume you mean having more "concepts" and
"relevance" connections between concepts. If so, I submit that
wikipedia estimate of synapse of the human brain at 1 to 5 quadrillion
is major complexity, and if all those connections were properly tuned,
that is awesome computing. Tuning seems to be the issue.
I mean having more active data, better memory, tremendously more
accurate and powerful computation. How complex our brain is at the
synaptic level has not all that much to do with how complex a model we
can hold in our awareness and manipulate accurately. We have no way
of "tuning the mind" and you would likely a get a biological computing
vegetable if you could. A great deal of our brain is design for and
supports functions that have nothing to do with modeling or abstract
computation.
Q3 why wouldn't a mind with characteristics of ... be able to build
models that "are far better at predicting future events"?
resp: This is very closely related to the limits of intelligence, but
not the only factor contributing to intelligence. Predictable events
are easy in a few domains, but are they an abundant part of life?
Abundant enough to say that we will be able to make "super"
predictions? Billions of daily decisions are made, and any one of
them could have a butterfly effect.
Not really and it ignores the actual question. If a given set of
factors of interest are inter-related with a larger number of variables
than humans can deal with then an intelligence that can work with such
more complex inter-dependencies will make better decisions in those
areas. We already have expert systems that make better decisions more
dependably in specialized areas than even most human experts in those
domains. I see no reason to expect this to decrease or hit a wall.
And this is just using weak AI.
Q4 why wouldn't a mind... be far better able to explain "aspects of
reality"?
resp: may I propose a simple exercise? Consider yourself to be Bill
Gates in philanthropic mode (ready to give to the world.) Make a few
decisions about how to do so, then explain why you chose the avenue
you took. If you didn't delegate this to committee, would you be able
to explain how the checks you wrote were the best choices in "reality"?
This is not relevant to the question at hand. Do you think an
intelligence with greater memory, computational capacity and vastly
greater speed can keep track of more data and generate better hypothesis
to explain the data and tests and refinements of those hypotheses? I
think the answer is obvious.
Deeper thinking - that means considering more options doesn't it?
If so, does extra thinking provide benefit if the evaluation system
is only at level X?
What does this mean? How would you separate "thinking" from the
"evaluation system"? What sort of "evaluation system" do you believe
can actually exist in reality that has characteristics different from
those you appear to consider woefully limited?
Q5 - what does it mean, or how do you separate thinking from an
evaluation system?
resp: Simple example in two statements:
1. Apple A is bigger than Apple B.
2. Apples are better than oranges.
Does it matter how much you know about apples and oranges? Will deep
thinking about the DNA of apples, the proteins of apples, the color of
apples or history of apples, help to prove the second statement? Will
deep analysis of oranges prove anything?
Will fast and accurate recall of every related fact about Apples and
oranges help in our proof of statement 2? Even if the second
statement had been 2. Apple A is better than Apple B, we would have
had trouble deciding if the superior color of A is greater than the
better taste of B.
This is a silly argument as (2) is a subjective value judgment having
nothing to do with more or less intelligence.
This is what I mean by evaluation system. Foolish example? Think
instead "economic prosperity" is better than "CO2 pollution" if you
want to be real world.
Q6 - what sort of "evaluation system" can exist that has
characteristics differing from what I consider woefully limited.
resp: I'm not clear what communicated the idea that I consider either
the machine intelligence or the human intelligence to be woefully
limited. I concede that machine intelligence will likely be as good
as human intelligence and maybe better than the average human. Is
this super?
Was the "woefully inadequate" in reference to a personal opinion?
Those are not my words, I consider human intelligence a work of art,
brilliant.
You assert it will not be "super" but you have not made an effective
argument for your position. Perhaps you will in the website you mention
but I doubt it.
Exactly what is it about human minds that makes us better decision
makers and more capable than any other creatures on the planet? Do you
believe that we are some pinnacle of intelligence and nothing can come
along significantly smarter than us? You seem to be arguing such a
position.
If you do not believe this then why would you think it is impossible to
build an AGI significantly smarter than us?
- samantha
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=80191252-f55782
