|
|
|
|
|
|
by michaelmrose
2120 days ago
|
|
|
I didn't suppose that it would run on your laptop. What is possible on top end supercomputers scales up as well as technology improves. In regards to scaling why can't we use more compute to run the a single ai faster and faster instead of simulating more AI especially if its running on a supercomputer with a high bandwidth communication between nodes? If between point A and point B you have 100 times the compute why don't you effectively simulate a century of thought for your single AI instead of simulating 100 AIs. |
|
|
Maybe it's related to experience/embodiment. What's a 100 years of thought if you don't have the experience, OODA feedback loop to inform it?
But maybe that's not it, and it's related to something else. I just think the simplistic idea that "once we have it, we only need to make it faster" will not work for some reason. I don't think creating ASI will be that easy. It's basically creating a god. I think if you sped up how an average human thinks, they don't become a god.
Consider psychological trauma and issues. Something that happened 20, 30, 40 years ago, people are still obsessed with and scarred by today. That's not adaptive, and in many ways, that's highly stupid. But it's so common in intelligent humans. If we could have compressed that 40 years of thought (and even experience) to 1 second, they still have made no progress wrt that factor. It's not just about speed, it's about the quality or nature of thought.
But I'm not saying that analogy explains it. I just think there will be some reason why simply adding speed will not some spectacular revolution make.
Another, but still too glib way of saying it is, say we create an AI equivalent to a human. Still humans are pretty dumb, all things considered. Say we speed it up. Now we just have a AI that's more quick to be dumb than a regular human. Do you know what I'm saying?