[agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs???
Ben, would you rather have one person with an IQ of 200, or 4 people with IQ's of 50? Ten computers of intelligence N, or one computer with intelligence 10*N ? Sure, the intelligence of the ten computers of intelligence N will be a little smarter than N, all together, because of cooperative effects But how much more? You can say that true intelligence can only develop thru socialization with peers -- but why? How do you know that will be true for AI's as well as humans? I'm not so sure I don't think we are faced with an either or situation in the case of AGIs. I think AGIs will be able to create pooled intelligence with an efficiency that far exceeds what humans can accomplish by group-work. I can see no reason why a community of AGIs wouldn't be able to link brains and pool some of the computing power of the platforms that each one manages - so by agreement with a groups of AGIs, one AGI might be given the right to use some of the computer hardware that is normally used by the other AGIs. This of course is the idea behind the United Devices grid computing. Plus the efficiency and potency of what can be passed between AGI minds is likely to be significantly greater than what can be passed between human minds. And as with humans, pooling brains with several different perspectives and specialisations is likely to yield significant gains in intelligence over the simple sum of the parts. So my guess is that the pursuit of the safety in numbers strategy is not likely to result in a very large penalty in lost intelligence. And even if their was a large intelligence loss due to dividing up the available computing power bewteen multiple AGIs, I'd rather have less AGI intelligence, that was much safer, than more intellegence that was much less safe. Cheers, Philip
RE: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs???
Hi, I don't see that you've made a convincing argument that a society of AI's is safer than an individual AI. Certainly among human societies, the only analogue we have, society-level violence and madness seems even MORE common than individual-level violence and madness. Often societies can make intrinsically peaceful humans turn violent, through social pressure, it seems. Yeah, you can try to influence an AGI society not to go that way, but you can also influence an individual AGI mind not to go that way... And: A society of AGI's that frequently engages in mind-merges with each other is neither a society nor an individual, it's something inbetween, a new kind of mind. This is an exciting prospect which has been discussed before... but it doesn't seem to me to solve the Friendliness problem. -- Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip SuttonSent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:35 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs??? Ben, would you rather have one person with an IQ of 200, or 4 people with IQ's of 50? Ten computers of intelligence N, or one computer with intelligence 10*N ? Sure, the intelligence of the ten computers of intelligence N will be a little smarter than N, all together, because of cooperative effects But how much more? You can say that true intelligence can only develop thru socialization with peers -- but why? How do you know that will be true for AI's as well as humans? I'm not so sure I don't think we are faced with an either or situation in the case of AGIs. I think AGIs will be able to create pooled intelligence with an efficiency that far exceeds what humans can accomplish by group-work. I can see no reason why a community of AGIs wouldn't be able to link brains and pool some of the computing power of the platforms that each one manages - so by agreement with a groups of AGIs, one AGI might be given the right to use some of the computer hardware that is normally used by the other AGIs. This of course is the idea behind the United Devices grid computing. Plus the efficiency and potency of what can be passed between AGI minds is likely to be significantly greater than what can be passed between human minds. And as with humans, pooling brains with several different perspectives and specialisations is likely to yield significant gains in intelligence over the simple sum of the parts. So my guess is that the pursuit of the "safety in numbers" strategy is not likely to result in a very large penalty in lost intelligence. And even if their was a large intelligence loss due to dividing up the available computing power bewteen multiple AGIs, I'd rather have less AGI intelligence, that was much safer, than more intellegence that was much less safe. Cheers, Philip
Re: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs???
Hello all..
I was wondering what people thought the relative risks were
between a super smart AGI that cannot yet self modify(change its own source
code), and an AGI that can self modify?
Do we see inherently less risk in case one? Perhaps some
"hard wired" ethics in case 1 would be much more doable then when an AGI can
self modify.
It seems that creating version 1 is going to be alot easier
than version 2. Maybe we can learn alot in the creation and maintenance of
version 1, that will guide how we go about doing version 2...
Just some random thoughts...
Kevin
- Original Message -
From:
Ben Goertzel
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:09
AM
Subject: RE: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs
more, dumber AGIs???
Hi,
I
don't see that you've made a convincing argument that a society of AI's is
safer than an individual AI. Certainly among human societies, the only
analogue we have, society-level violence and madness seems even MORE common
than individual-level violence and madness. Often societies can make
intrinsically peaceful humans turn violent, through social pressure, it
seems. Yeah, you can try to influence an AGI society not to go that way,
but you can also influence an individual AGI mind not to go that
way...
And:
A society of AGI's that frequently engages in mind-merges with each other is
neither a society nor an individual, it's something inbetween, a new kind of
mind. This is an exciting prospect which has been discussed before...
but it doesn't seem to me to solve the Friendliness
problem.
--
Ben G
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip
SuttonSent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:35 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more,
dumber AGIs???
Ben,
would you rather have one person with an IQ of
200, or 4 people with
IQ's of 50? Ten computers of intelligence N, or
one computer with
intelligence 10*N ? Sure, the intelligence of
the ten computers of
intelligence N will be a little smarter than N,
all together, because
of cooperative effects But how much
more? You can say that true
intelligence can only develop thru
socialization with peers -- but
why? How do you know that will be true
for AI's as well as humans?
I'm not so sure
I don't think
we are faced with an either or situation in the case of AGIs. I think AGIs
will be able to create pooled intelligence with an efficiency that far
exceeds what humans can accomplish by group-work.
I can see no
reason why a community of AGIs wouldn't be able to link brains and pool some
of the computing power of the platforms that each one manages - so by
agreement with a groups of AGIs, one AGI might be given the right to use
some of the computer hardware that is normally used by the other AGIs.
This of course is the idea behind the United Devices grid
computing.
Plus the
efficiency and potency of what can be passed between AGI minds is likely to
be significantly greater than what can be passed between human
minds.
And as with
humans, pooling brains with several different
perspectives and specialisations is likely to
yield significant gains in intelligence over the simple sum of the
parts.
So my guess
is that the pursuit of the "safety in numbers" strategy is not likely to
result in a very large penalty in lost intelligence.
And even if
their was a large intelligence loss due to dividing up the available
computing power bewteen multiple AGIs, I'd rather have less AGI intelligence, that was
much safer, than more intellegence that was much less
safe.
Cheers,
Philip
Re: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs???
It seems to me that communication and "thought sharing" between various AGI's would be so intertwined that each one will become indistinguishable from the other. So in essence you still have "one" AGI.. Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: RE: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs??? Hi, I don't see that you've made a convincing argument that a society of AI's is safer than an individual AI. Certainly among human societies, the only analogue we have, society-level violence and madness seems even MORE common than individual-level violence and madness. Often societies can make intrinsically peaceful humans turn violent, through social pressure, it seems. Yeah, you can try to influence an AGI society not to go that way, but you can also influence an individual AGI mind not to go that way... And: A society of AGI's that frequently engages in mind-merges with each other is neither a society nor an individual, it's something inbetween, a new kind of mind. This is an exciting prospect which has been discussed before... but it doesn't seem to me to solve the Friendliness problem. -- Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip SuttonSent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:35 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs??? Ben, would you rather have one person with an IQ of 200, or 4 people with IQ's of 50? Ten computers of intelligence N, or one computer with intelligence 10*N ? Sure, the intelligence of the ten computers of intelligence N will be a little smarter than N, all together, because of cooperative effects But how much more? You can say that true intelligence can only develop thru socialization with peers -- but why? How do you know that will be true for AI's as well as humans? I'm not so sure I don't think we are faced with an either or situation in the case of AGIs. I think AGIs will be able to create pooled intelligence with an efficiency that far exceeds what humans can accomplish by group-work. I can see no reason why a community of AGIs wouldn't be able to link brains and pool some of the computing power of the platforms that each one manages - so by agreement with a groups of AGIs, one AGI might be given the right to use some of the computer hardware that is normally used by the other AGIs. This of course is the idea behind the United Devices grid computing. Plus the efficiency and potency of what can be passed between AGI minds is likely to be significantly greater than what can be passed between human minds. And as with humans, pooling brains with several different perspectives and specialisations is likely to yield significant gains in intelligence over the simple sum of the parts. So my guess is that the pursuit of the "safety in numbers" strategy is not likely to result in a very large penalty in lost intelligence. And even if their was a large intelligence loss due to dividing up the available computing power bewteen multiple AGIs, I'd rather have less AGI intelligence, that was much safer, than more intellegence that was much less safe. Cheers, Philip
