|
|
|
|
|
|
by hnfong
822 days ago
|
|
|
> If you want to say that a problem can be solved by additional intelligence, you need to posit a mechanism. I can posit a mechanism, but that's not my point. The original claim included an argument how intelligence can manipulate people (by using "game theory"). Then if I understood your reply correctly, you basically rejected it with "if I can't do it, then the AI can't do it". That doesn't make sense, especially given that I don't see any reason to think your execution of any "game theory" is betting than a powerful AGI. And my understanding of "game theory" is just the accumulation of what we already know about human psychology and behavior. And we know that even simple algorithms (eg. the ones that Facebook, Tiktok etc uses) can get people hooked. It's not surprising to me that a more powerful algorithm could get people to change their minds on something quickly (heck, even Facebook/Tiktok tweaking the algorithm to make people more conscious of <issue> isn't something inconceivable. Given this context, I don't see how your argument of "I can't do it, why should I believe an AI can" holds any water at all... |
|
|
My point was more “even I can do that: it's not the limiting factor”. You need a channel of communication, and intelligence alone (for most values of "intelligence") doesn't give you that. No one person or organisation on Earth has that much influence.
I also have a bias against magical thinking applied to computer programs. While I'm happy to presume that there exists some algorithm most of the time, I'm incredibly sceptical of the idea that This One Weird Trick will discover The Book. You can't just presume that the AI can pull every capability it might ever need out of hammerspace, which is what most singularitarians seem to do. Who knows, perhaps I'm overcompensating?