Well excluding the magical stuff, a lot of our problems as a society can be solved be a smarter problem solving, state budgets for example, there are many factors, some of them are interwined some are not, over all this is a kind of task AI's are good at, AI doesn't have to be perfect, and by AI I don't mean the conscious bullshit, it's simply a program that preforms a task that wan't explicitly programmed and improves somewhat with experience, AI can be exremely helpful in the future, but it's not the second coming of jesus.
The special thing about machine learning and AI is that it's theoretically posibble for it to make valid decisions to improve that before being tackled by the AI weren't really a possibilty, we're not talking about brute forcing here, some machine learning algorithms (networks) expose a set of moves that were previously thought to be useless, for example when trying to tackle a game like pacman for example, AI algorithms would expose bugs and special moves like going through the ghosts, which is benefitial to the score.
Well smart may be the wrong word, but broad "insight" about all the different many factors and how they interact together and affect the final result, is closer to what it is.
Not to mention that eliminating the human factor is an important one, no (human) errors, no corruption, feedback from previous failures is what makes a machine more attractive (to me) in that kind of position
>>7846244 Because people believe problems can be solved by intelligence, that there aren't problems that are simply impossible. So if there was something super intelligent, it could super solve problems, right?
>>7846364 then maybe we shouldn't call such A.I. superintelligent, but supergood with people or something. The implication here is that intelligence is the most important skill to find good solutions, which is simply not true
>>7846364 I'm really not sure whatever AI we could create would be in mesure to model the complexity of a world filled with billions of humans.
But anyway, seeing how humans are, I just don't think their is a way to "solve our problems". We are the problem. Whatever happens, some people will like it, and some people won't. Some will go angry and break stuff, etc ...
>>7846420 Absolutly right but a judge is not supposed to feel love or whatever that looks like love, it must be objective and fair,so let AIs make what they are programmed to do, humans are intelligent and probably can program a judge robot or anything else which can do what he is made to
Define intelligence? The whole reason "Artifical Intelligence" is a term that exists is becuase it's a sexier title that is more likely to get funding, the alternative, "statistical dynamic decision planning" isn't as likely to get $$$ thrown at the researchers.
>>7846244 "Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control." - I. J. Good
>>7846602 >implying more intelligence doesn't require more computation power >implying you can keep on creating more and more intelligent A.I. with a limited amount of resources >implying there is not a point of diminishing returns where amount of resources to create an more intelligent A.I. grows exponentially I.J. Good sure made a lot of implications
>>7846643 Well, my problem is, I just dont see how he can take for granted that beeing more intelligent than man would make the machine much more capable. If you look at our world today, its not the most intelligent people who have the most power, so it doesn't seem like intelligence is the most important skill
>>7846676 >If you look at our world today, its not the most intelligent people who have the most power, so it doesn't seem like intelligence is the most important skill I'm pretty sure intelligence correlates strongly with power. But there's also the issue that variance in human intelligence probably isn't very big compared to what an artificial intelligence could achieve.
The most powerful chimpanzee might not be the most intelligent one, but the reason that humans rule this world and not chimpanzees is definitely our intelligence. And the difference between the highest intelligence a self-improving AI can achieve and the intelligence of the smartest human could be much, much greater than the difference between the smartest human and the smartest chimpanzee.
>>7846676 >Well, my problem is, I just dont see how he can take for granted that beeing more intelligent than man would make the machine much more capable. >If you look at our world today, its not the most intelligent people who have the most power, so it doesn't seem like intelligence is the most important skill What do you think intelligence is? For one thing, it includes such things as charisma, political skills, networking, and "people skills" in general. In that light, the people with a lot of intelligence *absolutely* are the ones holding power in today's world.
>Why do people believe superintelligent AI could solve all our problems and rule the world and do all other sort of magic stuff? Intelligence is LITERALLY (though not exactly) the ability to accomplish arbitrary goals and solve arbitrary problems; the more arbitrary the problems you can solve and the goals you can accomplish are, the more intelligent you are. A superintelligence being able to solve all our problems is a trivial consequence.
>>7846861 I like the definition of intelligence as the ability to solve problems efficiently. Everything else being the same, if you can come up with a better solution to a problem than the other guy, or if you can solve the problem faster or with less resources, you're smarter.
>>7846867 >Define "arbitrary" No need. You can flesh it out in more detail by saying that the more goals you can accomplish, the more intelligent you are; it's a quantitative thing. (You could define an exact measure if you really wanted, but that does not really change the key point so why bother.) "arbitrary" is just an informal description of the above.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.