[mannykannot]

The author seems to want it both ways: he is skeptical that IQ measures intelligence (and certainly not general intelligence, the existence of which he denies), but he uses it in his arguments. As I see it, the author's IQ argument has three claims: that people with exceptional IQ do not generally achieve commensurately that much better than the rest of us, that this is because they are constrained by the state of the intellectual environment they live in, and that there is a threshold such that IQ over that level is unhelpful. This last claim is allegedly a conclusion drawn from its predecessors, but to me, it looks like the first two claims provide a possible explanation for why there might be an apparent threshold effect, regardless of whether there actually is one. Nothing in this passage convincingly denies the notion that a sufficient number of communicating, above-average intelligent agents could expand the intellectual environment faster than we are currently able to achieve.

[erasemus]

I skimmed the article again and didn't find any obvious equivocations regarding IQ and intelligence.

But, regardless of this, I think solving problems requires creativity, not intelligence. Creativity seems to be independent of knowing how to do IQ tests. It's also, pace the author, independent of the environment. The main limiting factor is whether you want some particular knowledge.

>sufficient number of communicating, above-average intelligent agents could expand the intellectual environment

Haven't we already got that, with the internet?

Groups tend to be dominated by groupthink which is why creative individuals are aloof.

Nevertheless, a young group of AGIs would be fairly isolated from humanity simply by virtue of being non-human. So, though their starting point would be determined by the state of our knowledge at their birth, they may well make rapid progress for a short period, rather like the renaissance or the USA in the late 1800s when the nation was young and expanding. Then presumably they would fall prey to groupthink and pessimism just as most adults and nations do eventually. Progress would slow considerably.

[mannykannot]

"However, it is a well-documented fact that intelligence — as measured by IQ, which is debatable..."

>>sufficient number of communicating, above-average intelligent agents could expand the intellectual environment

>Haven't we already got that, with the internet?

Up to a point (with all the intelligent agents being human, as we don't have AGI), but it would be rather surprising if what we see now just happens to be a hard upper limit.

I am not necessarily convinced by all of the points you raise, but they are certainly reasonable in the context of arguing that singularity-like events are by no means inevitable (a point of view that I share). What the author is claiming, however, is that it is impossible, which means that he has imposed on himself a burden of proof (that goes beyond plausibility) for a number of conjectures.

[visarga]

Faster, yes, not exponentially faster. With a thousand times more scientists you don't improve the speed of discovery 1000x.

[daveguy]

Excellent point. On the contrary. You don't even improve it +1000. If you are lucky you improve it +log(1000).