Matt wrote, in reply to me:
> > An AI twice as smart as any human could figure > > out how to use the resources at his disposal to > > help him create an AI 3 times as smart as any > > human. These AI's will not be brains in vats. > > They will have resources at their disposal. > > It depends on what you mean by "twice as smart". Do you mean twice as many > brain cells? Twice as much memory? Twice as fast? Twice as much knowledge? > Able to score 200 on an adult IQ test (if such a thing existed)? > > Unless you tell me otherwise, I have to assume that it means "able to do > what 2 people can do" (or 3 or 10, the exact number isn't important). In > that case, I have to argue it is the global brain that is creating the AI > with a very tiny bit of help from the parent AI. You would get the same > result by hiring more people. Whatever ... You are IMO just distracting attention from the main point, by making odd definitions... No, of course my colloquial phrase "twice as smart" does not mean "as smart as two people put together". That is not the accepted interpretation of that colloquialism and you know it! To make my statement clearer, one approach is to forget about quantitating intelligence for the moment... Let's talk about qualitative differences in intelligence. Do you agree that a dog is qualitatively much more intelligent than a roach, and a human is qualitatively much more intelligent than a dog? In this sense I could replace > An AI twice as smart as any human could figure > out how to use the resources at his disposal to > help him create an AI 3 times as smart as any > human. These AI's will not be brains in vats. > They will have resources at their disposal. with **** An AI that is qualitatively much smarter than any human could figure out how to use the resources at his disposal to help it create an AI that is qualitatively much smarter than it. These AI's will not be brains in vats. They will have resources at their disposal. **** On the other hand, if you insist on mathematical definitions of intelligence, we could talk about, say, the intelligence of a system as the "total prediction difficulty of the set S of sequences, with the property that the system can predict S during a period of time of length T". We can define prediction difficulty as Shane Legg does in his PhD thesis. We can then average this over various time-lengths T, using some appropriate weighting function. (I'm not positing the above as an ideal definition of intelligence ... just throwing one definition out there... my conceptual point is quite independent of the specific definition of intelligence you choose) Using this sort of definition, my statement is surely true, though it would take work to prove it. Using this sort of definition, a system A2 that is twice as smart as system A1, if allowed to interact with an appropriate environment vastly more complex than either of the systems, would surely be capable of modifying itself into a system A3 that is twice as smart as A2. This seems extremely obvious and I don't want to spend time right now proving it formally. No doubt writing out the proof would reveal various mathematical conditions on the theorem statement... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
