another obviously correct opinion from Lucidity

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

This is brilliant and I’m saving it and will post a link to it the next time someone at work asks why we can’t “just use AI to do it” when a ticket gets rejected for being stupid and/or unreasonable.

However:

The first is that we have some sort of intelligence explosion, where AI recursively self-improves itself, and we're all harvested for our constituent atoms […]. It may surprise some readers that I am open to the possibility of this happening, but I have always found the arguments reasonably sound.

Yeah, I gotta admit, I am surprised. Because I have not found a single reasonable argument for this horseshit and the rest of the article (as well as the others I read from their blog) does not read like it’s been written by someone who’d buy into AI foom.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah, that juxtaposition makes no sense to me. How does the machine that remixes existing text and makes it worse become anything that can "recursively self-improve"? Show your work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You got Schmidhuber'd! A Gödel machine would fit the bill. Nobody's built one yet, but the hard part -- proof search through something like Metamath (particularly Metamath Zero) -- is long-since solved. It wouldn't take over the world, though; it would just sit in a corner and get really good at maths over the next few centuries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    I'm sure that taking a noisy average of everything posted on Twitter about Gödel machines will produce a Gödel machine, any day now.

    Step 2: the Gödel machine becomes the monolith from 2001 that can do anything not explicitly prohibited by the laws of physics

  • source
  • parent