|
Top-level
 @trigrax We don't have what it takes to create "superintelligence". We don't know what "intelligence" is in the first place. We probably will create some kind of intelligence, if we try real hard, but it I don't believe it will be any more "super" than any of us, save for maybe experience. In other words, "superintelligence" is science fiction stuff, IMO. 5 comments
@trigrax Whales and elephants exist. They got lots of brain stuff. Much more than humans do. They're not "superintelligent", whatever that means.  @drq Good point. It may take some hitherto unknown architectural advances, not just scaling up. But looking at the advances of neural nets over the past decade, I don’t see how it can be dismissed. It might be science fiction, but you know, a lot of science fiction stuff from 1900s and even 1950s is mundane reality now. > looking at the advances of neural nets over the past decade As I said, too easily impressed. Yeah, I mean it's nice/horrible depending on application and context, but it's not anywhere near either a rapture nor apocalypse. > it's not anywhere near either a rapture nor apocalypse I’m not saying it is. I’m saying the rate of progress (20 years from a stuggling ZIP code recognizer to GPT-4o), combined with the history of other fields of technology, justifies the concern that if this carries on for another couple decades, we *might* get to that humans-vs.-mice level. We can’t be sure, but it looks just plausible enough to get worried or hyped up. |
Gregory's Server
@drq Intelligence is “brain stuff”. Superintelligence is “a lot of brain stuff”.
Consider mice and humans. Both have a brain. Even their brain architectures aren’t vastly different. A blob of neurons with some identifiable areas, some of which are common between the two. Humans just have ~1000× the stuff. And humans go to the Moon, while mice go into mousetraps.