I agree, in that I think we can't make a machine that is fundamentally smarter than us.
But I think it's possible to create a machine that is as smart as a human. Now, since some human beings seem to be smarter than others, I think it's possible to build a machine that is closer to the "smart" end. And, of course, with the help of such machines, we will be able to do this better and better (as with knowledge and technology in general). Therefore, we could build many Einstein-level intelligences (or a bit better, since he wasn't perfect).
Behind this, my key point is that "more intelligence" is an illusion. Einstein was a function of his times (there was the unexplained lack of motion through the ether, for one thing) and, like Newton, saw further than most because he SOTSOG. He wasn't fundamentally smarter than you - though he might have been able to keep track of more ideas than you, and track their relations to other ideas, and he might have been more free of convention (the humility to admit he didn't know, and the arrogance that you don't either), and more dedicated than you. Ie. he was probably smarter, but not fundamentally.
Being able to accept that you don't know, and therefore to be open to see, is the important thing. Not intelligence.
So if we can have something that is just like the person who invents an equal-to-humanity intelligence, but operating a hundred times faster, with perfect recall, and able to shut down senses or arbitrarily reorder goals, you don't think we could tell this being "Do what your meatspace predecessor did, approximately" and have something even faster, in less time than the original took? And that this process couldn't be repeated?
Comments
I agree, in that I think we can't make a machine that is fundamentally smarter than us.
But I think it's possible to create a machine that is as smart as a human. Now, since some human beings seem to be smarter than others, I think it's possible to build a machine that is closer to the "smart" end. And, of course, with the help of such machines, we will be able to do this better and better (as with knowledge and technology in general). Therefore, we could build many Einstein-level intelligences (or a bit better, since he wasn't perfect).
Behind this, my key point is that "more intelligence" is an illusion. Einstein was a function of his times (there was the unexplained lack of motion through the ether, for one thing) and, like Newton, saw further than most because he SOTSOG. He wasn't fundamentally smarter than you - though he might have been able to keep track of more ideas than you, and track their relations to other ideas, and he might have been more free of convention (the humility to admit he didn't know, and the arrogance that you don't either), and more dedicated than you. Ie. he was probably smarter, but not fundamentally.
Being able to accept that you don't know, and therefore to be open to see, is the important thing. Not intelligence.
So if we can have something that is just like the person who invents an equal-to-humanity intelligence, but operating a hundred times faster, with perfect recall, and able to shut down senses or arbitrarily reorder goals, you don't think we could tell this being "Do what your meatspace predecessor did, approximately" and have something even faster, in less time than the original took? And that this process couldn't be repeated?
We could still build faster Einsteins.
Yes, and more of them.
But they're not fundamentally smarter than us; it's just another technology (which is a great thing).
And cheaper Einsteins.