|
|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
952 days ago
|
|
|
> I'm not saying this would necessarily lead to the technological singularity: You kinda are though: if it hits a limit and can no longer make a better version of itself, then your definition means the final one in the sequence isn't an AGI even though it's worse parent is. > But what I know is that an AI that is incapable of producing a better version of itself is less intelligent than the humans who created it in the first place. Neither necessary nor sufficient: (1) they are made by teams of expert humans, so an AGI could be smarter than any one of them and still not as capable as the group (kinda like how humans are smarter than evolution, but not smart enough to make a superhuman intelligence even though evolution made us by having lots of entities and time) (2) one that can do this can still merely be a special-purpose AI that's no good at anything else (like an optimising compiler told to compile its own source code) (3) what if it can only make its own equal, being already at some upper limit? |
|
|