[dane-pgp]

It's an interesting read, but perhaps it only succeeds in pointing out the gaps in our knowledge. When I read their counterargument to the possibility of intelligence explosion:

"Positive feedback loops are common in the world, and very rarely move fast enough and far enough to become a dominant dynamic in the world."

the idea that immediately comes to mind is the Harmless Supernova Fallacy, described on this (obnoxiously JavaScript-dependent) site:

https://arbital.com/p/harmless_supernova/

Knowledge of this fallacy is a mental tool I have found quite useful, as it seems to be a type of fallacy that is easy to make by accident. To be fair, the reasoning in the article may not quite reach the level of a fallacy, but the intelligence explosion section ends saying effectively this:

"we think the intelligence explosion argument could be strong if strong reason is found to expect an unusually fast and persistent feedback loop [i.e. an intelligence explosion]"

which sounds like a classic case of Begging the Question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[jwellt]

I think the reasoning in the arguments is left a little loose on purpose simply because it is so difficult make strong arguments about something we know so little about.

[s1dechnl]

It is difficult to make arguments in something that has no grounding. I'd expect someone who claims to have a valid argument for an [intelligence explosion] event to have formal education and industry experience designing computational systems such that they could clearly define how exactly it could occur. I have yet to see such an individual w/ such a viewpoint. Instead, I see a ridiculous argument being forwarded by people who are least informed/experienced so as to push fear, uncertainty, doubt either for profit/attention or because it fulfills some sci-fi oriented religious prophecy. Internally, companies require extensive and well reasoned documentation before funding an initiative. Externally, someone w/ no expertise/proof throws their hands up in the air speaking about armageddon and they are able to secure considerable attention and money.

[pas]

That's quite a bad argument when it comes to "existential risk for all of humanity".

Of course, so far no one has any idea how pragmatically it could play out. Maybe it'll start with something as banal as VisualStudio + Cortana providing an advantage to AI design, that helps designing a better Cortana, that helps designing a better Cortana, that ...

Yes, of course, it's unlikely in the coming next 1-2 decade, because the best "AGI" we know (the human mind), is a hodgepodge of specialized faculties jury rigged together by ancient code lossy compressed and stored in a multi-stage bootloading wetware that takes years to learn reading the magnificent ~26 letters of a latin alphabet (but similarly takes the same time to learn walking, talking, hearing, rudimentary thinking, a minimal concept of self, a theory of mind and so on, and for some reason it has a shitty API, it must go through all of the aforementioned to even begin learning chess).

So far AI is focusing on computer vision, some NLP, (strategy or easy to evaluate) games. At least the current progress/results are clustered around those areas. We don't know when will be the next big leap, maybe in knowledge representation, or goal formation, maybe in other kinds of very useful, more general intelligence related areas.

[s1dechnl]

> That's quite a bad argument when it comes to "existential risk for all of humanity".

It's not a bad argument. It's the standard for creating one. Engineers get paid to resolve risk/problems. So, if you claim there is one and it is fantastically an 'existential risk for all of humanity', one should at least be able to explain how exactly it exists in the most basic technical terms. I haven't heard a single example of this and in my work it was resolved from focusing on the hard problem : What is intelligence?.

> Of course, so far no one has any idea how pragmatically it could play out.

Then there is no argument. Let it go. What you don't understand is that millions/billions are at play over this argument. Humans love to make up fantastical nonsense/games for profit. You're being played. If someone truly claims they care about this issue, why haven't they done the first step? Define how exactly this pragmatically could play out. Were talking about people with PhDs, industry titans, and millions if not billions are at play and you're telling me that between them all they can't come up with a signle pragmatic way this scenario plays out? It's a scam that's why.

> Maybe it'll start with something as banal as VisualStudio + Cortana providing an advantage to AI design, that helps designing a better Cortana, that helps designing a better Cortana, that ...

Garbage in garbage out. Weak AI in Weak AI out.

> Yes, of course, it's unlikely in the coming next 1-2 decade, because the best "AGI" we know (the human mind), is a hodgepodge of specialized faculties jury rigged together by ancient code lossy compressed and stored in a multi-stage bootloading wetware that takes years to learn reading the magnificent ~26 letters of a latin alphabet (but similarly takes the same time to learn walking, talking, hearing, rudimentary thinking, a minimal concept of self, a theory of mind and so on, and for some reason it has a shitty API, it must go through all of the aforementioned to even begin learning chess).

And if I told you the foundation of AGI has already been defined, the core computational model proofed, and that a functional system exists today how would anything change? AGI is here and there is no doomsday playing out. It's running on an 8-core processor, a GPU, and 32GB of RAM completing interactive exercises and going through a series of tests defined by its creator. The bowl of spaghetti above your head was decoded and a functional equivalent instantiated in computer hardware. The locks are compiled binaries, read only code regions, and a power button.

> So far AI is focusing on computer vision, some NLP, (strategy or easy to evaluate) games. At least the current progress/results are clustered around those areas. We don't know when will be the next big leap, maybe in knowledge representation, or goal formation, maybe in other kinds of very useful, more general intelligence related areas.

Instead imagine a child AGI with no bearings on the world... The human equivalent eons ago... Being carefully cultivated and learned in a controlled environment. No takeoff intelligence scenario. No end of the world. A child simply stumbling its way through controlled scenarios being oversee and tweaked by its creator. Not so scary huh?

[throwaway397537]

>And if I told you the foundation of AGI has already been defined, the core computational model proofed, and that a functional system exists today how would anything change? AGI is here and there is no doomsday playing out. It's running on an 8-core processor, a GPU, and 32GB of RAM completing interactive exercises and going through a series of tests defined by its creator. The bowl of spaghetti above your head was decoded and a functional equivalent instantiated in computer hardware. The locks are compiled binaries, read only code regions, and a power button.

(1) What sort of tests is it going through?

(2) How do you know it's self-aware (don't just say because you designed it that way)?

(3) How is this an improvement over SHRDLU (which also exhibited fairly complex behavior and "understanding" within a simulated environment)?

(4) Did you actually "invalidate a host of theories, [and] create new mathematics, new algorithms, and new theories"? Which ones?

[s1dechnl]

As I wasn't able to reply to [throwaway397537] directly, I'll reply here : > (1) What sort of tests is it going through?

* Latency/performance

* Scaling

* Data flow Observation trials

* Progressively difficult and open ended order following

* Language/Communication construction

A whole host of others...

> (2) How do you know it's self-aware (don't just say because you designed it that way)?

Not sure what to say beyond this nor do I think I should. I will say that centers on theory of what exactly that means which I cultivated full-time over the better part of a year. I can boot "identical" systems and get completely different behavior if I so choose in one of my models. Same outcome. Different behavior/execution getting there. And yes, this is based on new domain theories centers on mathematics/information theory.

> (3) How is this an improvement over SHRDLU (which also exhibited fairly complex behavior and "understanding" within a simulated environment)?

I've never heard of SHRDLU. I just parsed the wikipedia page for it. This is essentially environmental modeling/interaction based on a compiled language model. I scanned forward to the obvious limitation of such systems : "This led other AI researchers to excessive optimism which was soon lost when later systems attempted to deal with situations with a more realistic level of ambiguity and complexity."

Essentially, there is no intelligence just programatic modeling. It of course falls apart when you scale the environment and abstraction level. I have no such limitations as i've centered on intelligence. Internal world Modeling/reasoning is the approach the industry is taking to try to extend Weak AI. I am not approaching the problem in this manner. I spent a considerable amount of time focusing on information theory and have constructed new and novel approaches. The industry desiring to rush to things to market/showcase and reflecting on what they are familiar with instead focus the next leg of Weak AI on language modeling. This is a shortcut that will run into the same problems : SHRDLU. There is no shortcut to the hard problem. You either tackle it head on and first and foremost or you're going to get lost in an abstraction of it.

> (4) Did you actually "invalidate a host of theories, [and] create new mathematics, new algorithms, and new theories"? Which ones?

Yes. The research phase of my work started approximately 4 years ago [full time]. It centered on : general biology, development biology, neuro-biology, neuro-chemistry, information theory, new branches of mathematics, new methodologies for computation scaling, new branches of philosophy, new branches related to the theory of mind, etc. I authored code only when I felt I had fundamental aspects that needed to be proofed. The majority of my work centers on new foundations. I proofed a number of components and began converging them into an over-all architecture in recent years. There were revisions to various theories/foundations as the pieces came together. There were points where I felt, once everything came together that I hadn't achieved what I set out to. I buckled down a number of times under a [one last attempt] mindset and eventually it came together. It came together in a fashion in which I can see its design across a number of things. I took a breather. I did some reading on social impact/considerations as I've done throughout all my work and then I centered on following it through. I have designs for yet to be produced hardware. I have a complete design for software. I now mainly author code on a day to day basis. It is operational and I am steadily implementing my research. Why no publications/white papers? I maintain a graduate degree and decided not to go through with a PhD for a number of reasons. I have observed what occurs in Academia in relation to politics/attribution.. I have noted a number of prominent individuals attribute other's work to themselves with only a footnote mention to the original source of ideation. I am opposed to openly disclosing highly powerful understanding and valuable IP of this nature. I have spent time observing the world and I deem it reckless doing so with something as powerful/open ended as AGI. So, as far as you're concerned, I'm a nobody w/o proof. I'll provide proof in due time so as to solicit securitization of my work. However, I don't aim to disclose significant details about how it was achieved. I'll openly work with reasoned council so as to decide what should be done in such a capacity...

And no, i'm not a crackpot =P. You're more than welcome to look me up on Linkedin.

> Did you actually "invalidate a host of theories, [and] create new mathematics, new algorithms, and new theories"? Which ones? Yes. Which ones? ... As I am of such a mind, I know if I begin detailing this, someone with adequate intelligence and of similar mind can begin piecing together some of more deeper aspects of my work. So, I respectfully won't disclose details beyond new foundations in information theory.

[red75prime]

What is your argument? Why a group of engineers who can think two times faster than average cannot perform the task of designing three times faster engineer quicker than a group of average engineers?

They will hit economical and physical limits eventually, sure. But what will stop them at the beginning?

[pas]

I guess the argument is, that so far no one showed good examples of how would that lead to a total extinction. How would it start, etc.

So it's kind of a (fallacious) argument against "black box"-ing the whole intelligence explosion problem. If you can't define it, you can't analyze it sort of thing.

[s1dechnl]

What I stated was that there isn't even a sound/reasoned example as to how a it would escape its bounds unless purposely authored to and even then you run into the scenario of human limits (its creator). Also, having no understanding on how AGI is structured, it is quite foolish to talk about bound leaping in the traditional sense of tech which is mainly associated with computer viruses that are purposely written for that sole purpose. There's nothing to even suggest you can purposely author AGI in such a fashion. So...

> How would it start, etc.

There has been no credible framing on how it would even start. As such, it's a null point of discussion.

> If you can't define it, you can't analyze it sort of thing.

With no definition, you can 'attempt' to analyze it and you'll likely be horribly off the mark, wasting tons of resources, and likely produce something that has no bearing on the real thing. Instead of admitting this, it's like people put full faith in these efforts being sound when the reality is the exact opposite. Why engage in this, unless your aim is profit/notoriety, when you could be working on the actual problem? Define intelligence [first]. Time to be honest with oneself. Time to stop projecting ones shortcomings on others. Time to stop using fear/uncertainty/doubt to obscure one's true intent. Time to stop pushing the disinformation cloud. Time for TRUE intelligence.

[red75prime]

By the same logic there could be no virus which will exterminate humanity, because there was no precedents and we don't know the structure of such virus. Right?

[s1dechnl]

> But what will stop them at the beginning?

Themselves of course. You are after-all your own worst enemy. I don't think people appreciate the incredibly slim number of individuals who are actually capable of pursuing this problem through to fruition and what their natures necessarily have to be. Do people not know of the types of individuals whose work is still being dusted off and relabeled as modern day achievements by others? The thinkers and creators of the previous AI age had certain characteristics. Certain character flaws and natures preclude you from probing certain subject matter. If you don't know much about yourself as a human being and your creation... If you haven't conquered aspects of yourself, how do you imagine you magically become capable of replicated it another domain? You don't. It's a non-starter which is why there is so much wheel spinning going on even with billions of dollars of resources and top ranking engineering talent. I really don't think people appreciate how fundamental AGI is. Look in a mirror sometime. All the answers are right there if you can find them/recognize them. Always has been.