I'll leave it to your imagination what an AI could do with that.
Why think about AI? Why not imagine what I can do with that? Which is almost nothing because the range of those transmissions is measured in inches.
All of this is academic because it assumes the AI would design a new smarter AI - which of course we could not let it do since we wouldn't be able to trust the design.
So all you have is a first generation AI and if we're lucky it might just possibly approach human intelligence.
All of this is academic because it assumes the AI would design a new smarter AI - which of course we could not let it do since we wouldn't be able to trust the design.
Err... that was the assumption that started the debate--that someone will be both smart enough to code an AI, and clever enough to code it with the ability to self-modify, and stupid enough to do that without adding any guides for what it should be self-modifying toward.
If you don't assume that the ratchet-effect of Positivist scientific progress allows for the existence of such a person (in that they'd only be taking the current literature of their time and adding one last little insight, so they don't have to be superintelligent enough to catch their error in advance), then we're having different arguments here.
> All of this is academic because it assumes the AI would design a new smarter AI
I think this is a very reasonable assumption. It would be very difficult to just flat-out write a human-level AI, but it might be a little less difficult to start with a somewhat dumb AI with an ability to improve itself.
Comments
Yes, and then what?
Why think about AI? Why not imagine what I can do with that? Which is almost nothing because the range of those transmissions is measured in inches.
All of this is academic because it assumes the AI would design a new smarter AI - which of course we could not let it do since we wouldn't be able to trust the design.
So all you have is a first generation AI and if we're lucky it might just possibly approach human intelligence.
Err... that was the assumption that started the debate--that someone will be both smart enough to code an AI, and clever enough to code it with the ability to self-modify, and stupid enough to do that without adding any guides for what it should be self-modifying toward.
If you don't assume that the ratchet-effect of Positivist scientific progress allows for the existence of such a person (in that they'd only be taking the current literature of their time and adding one last little insight, so they don't have to be superintelligent enough to catch their error in advance), then we're having different arguments here.
I think this is a very reasonable assumption. It would be very difficult to just flat-out write a human-level AI, but it might be a little less difficult to start with a somewhat dumb AI with an ability to improve itself.