| I have read a lot of thoughts on the supposed "singularity", and something I still have yet to see is for someone to realize that every person who believes in the singularity disregards economics. They all seem to think that this intelligent machine will improve it's algorithm or find ways to make smaller, more efficient, and better designed chips. On the software side, there is only so much one can do to maximize the intelligent aspect of the algorithm. At one point or another, the program will be maximally efficient at solving whatever problem the algorithm is designed to solve. On the hardware side, the singularitists sometimes argue that the program will design every better, bigger, and more efficient chip designs as the news chips would be used to build even better chips. However, who is going to pay for the manufacturing, energy, and maintenance costs of this self improving machine? Eventually, this machine will have to quit trying to design more intelligent machines and start solving HUMAN PROBLEMS. Why? Cause humans will actually pay for the solutions to problems that this intelligent machine can solve. I'm not saying that this type of self improving machine would never be built. I just think that we will end up splitting the line between devoting resources to improving the machine to encourage future growth, and making money by solving problems that people are willing to pay for. Also note that as this machine gets more and more powerful, the problem of making itself better will get more and more complex, and as I think we can all agree on, complexity is our greatest enemy. |
I don't think that's accurate. LessWrong, one of the largest online communities talking about (friendly) AI and the Intelligence Explosion, was founded by Eliezer Yudkowky. He was a co-blogger with Economist Robin Hanson, also a contributor to LessWrong. That's not to say that Robin Hanson agrees with all the views, but they are aware of economics.
In fact, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote a paper specifically on the economics of the Intelligence Explosion (https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf). He also regularly writes about economic matters.
As to your specific points:
"However, who is going to pay for the manufacturing, energy, and maintenance costs of this self improving machine? Eventually, this machine will have to quit trying to design more intelligent machines and start solving HUMAN PROBLEMS. Why? Cause humans will actually pay for the solutions to problems that this intelligent machine can solve."
"I'm not saying that this type of self improving machine would never be built. I just think that we will end up splitting the line between devoting resources to improving the machine to encourage future growth, and making money by solving problems that people are willing to pay for."
For a very advanced intelligence, creating its own resources isn't a problem. E.g. humans. We make our own resources. The AI doesn't have to rely on humans necessarily. Maybe only in the beginning.
"Also note that as this machine gets more and more powerful, the problem of making itself better will get more and more complex, and as I think we can all agree on, complexity is our greatest enemy."
That sounds reasonable. But the limit that a superior intelligence reaches can be many orders of magnitude above where humans are on the spectrum. E.g., things that are overly complex for monkeys have been achieved by humans, despite the fact that they are much more complex.