Hypothetical immensely superhuman agent
A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. "Superintelligence" may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems (e.g., superintelligent language translators or engineering assistants) whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world. A superintelligence may or may not be created by an intelligence explosion and associated with a technological singularity.
University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest". The program Fritz falls short of superintelligenceeven though it is much better than humans at chessbecause Fritz cannot outperform humans in other tasks. Following Hutter and Legg, Bostrom treats superintelligence as general dominance at goal-oriented behavior, leaving open whether an artificial or human superintelligence would possess capacities such as intentionality (cf. the Chinese room argument) or first-person consciousness (cf. the hard problem of consciousness).
Technological researchers disagree about how likely present-day human intelligence is to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of futures studies scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to interface with computers, or upload their minds to computers, in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.
Some researchers believe that superintelligence will likely follow shortly after the development of artificial general intelligence. The first generally intelligent machines are likely to immediately hold an enormous advantage in at least some forms of mental capability, including the capacity of perfect recall, a vastly superior knowledge base, and the ability to multitask in ways not possible to biological entities. This may give them the opportunity toeither as a single being or as a new speciesbecome much more powerful than humans, and to displace them.
A number of scientists and forecasters argue for prioritizing early research into the possible benefits and risks of human and machine cognitive enhancement, because of the potential social impact of such technologies.
Philosopher David Chalmers argues that artificial general intelligence is a very likely path to superhuman intelligence. Chalmers breaks this claim down into an argument that AI can achieve equivalence to human intelligence, that it can be extended to surpass human intelligence, and that it can be further amplified to completely dominate humans across arbitrary tasks.
Concerning human-level equivalence, Chalmers argues that the human brain is a mechanical system, and therefore ought to be emulatable by synthetic materials. He also notes that human intelligence was able to biologically evolve, making it more likely that human engineers will be able to recapitulate this invention. Evolutionary algorithms in particular should be able to produce human-level AI. Concerning intelligence extension and amplification, Chalmers argues that new AI technologies can generally be improved on, and that this is particularly likely when the invention can assist in designing new technologies.
If research into strong AI produced sufficiently intelligent software, it would be able to reprogram and improve itself a feature called "recursive self-improvement". It would then be even better at improving itself, and could continue doing so in a rapidly increasing cycle, leading to a superintelligence. This scenario is known as an intelligence explosion. Such an intelligence would not have the limitations of human intellect, and may be able to invent or discover almost anything.
Computer components already greatly surpass human performance in speed. Bostrom writes, "Biological neurons operate at a peak speed of about 200 Hz, a full seven orders of magnitude slower than a modern microprocessor (~2 GHz)." Moreover, neurons transmit spike signals across axons at no greater than 120 m/s, "whereas existing electronic processing cores can communicate optically at the speed of light". Thus, the simplest example of a superintelligence may be an emulated human mind run on much faster hardware than the brain. A human-like reasoner that could think millions of times faster than current humans would have a dominant advantage in most reasoning tasks, particularly ones that require haste or long strings of actions.
Another advantage of computers is modularity, that is, their size or computational capacity can be increased. A non-human (or modified human) brain could become much larger than a present-day human brain, like many supercomputers. Bostrom also raises the possibility of collective superintelligence: a large enough number of separate reasoning systems, if they communicated and coordinated well enough, could act in aggregate with far greater capabilities than any sub-agent.
There may also be ways to qualitatively improve on human reasoning and decision-making. Humans appear to differ from chimpanzees in the ways we think more than we differ in brain size or speed. Humans outperform non-human animals in large part because of new or enhanced reasoning capacities, such as long-term planning and language use. (See evolution of human intelligence and primate cognition.) If there are other possible improvements to reasoning that would have a similarly large impact, this makes it likelier that an agent can be built that outperforms humans in the same fashion humans outperform chimpanzees.
All of the above advantages hold for artificial superintelligence, but it is not clear how many hold for biological superintelligence. Physiological constraints limit the speed and size of biological brains in many ways that are inapplicable to machine intelligence. As such, writers on superintelligence have devoted much more attention to superintelligent AI scenarios.
Carl Sagan suggested that the advent of Caesarean sections and in vitro fertilization may permit humans to evolve larger heads, resulting in improvements via natural selection in the heritable component of human intelligence. By contrast, Gerald Crabtree has argued that decreased selection pressure is resulting in a slow, centuries-long reduction in human intelligence, and that this process instead is likely to continue into the future. There is no scientific consensus concerning either possibility, and in both cases the biological change would be slow, especially relative to rates of cultural change.
Selective breeding, nootropics, NSI-189, MAOIs, epigenetic modulation, and genetic engineering could improve human intelligence more rapidly. Bostrom writes that if we come to understand the genetic component of intelligence, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used to select for embryos with as much as 4 points of IQ gain (if one embryo is selected out of two), or with larger gains (e.g., up to 24.3 IQ points gained if one embryo is selected out of 1000). If this process is iterated over many generations, the gains could be an order of magnitude greater. Bostrom suggests that deriving new gametes from embryonic stem cells could be used to iterate the selection process very rapidly. A well-organized society of high-intelligence humans of this sort could potentially achieve collective superintelligence.
Alternatively, collective intelligence might be constructible by better organizing humans at present levels of individual intelligence. A number of writers have suggested that human civilization, or some aspect of it (e.g., the Internet, or the economy), is coming to function like a global brain with capacities far exceeding its component agents. If this systems-based superintelligence relies heavily on artificial components, however, it may qualify as an AI rather than as a biology-based superorganism.. A prediction market is sometimes considered an example of working collective intelligence system, consisting of humans only (assuming algorithms are not used to inform decisions).
A final method of intelligence amplification would be to directly enhance individual humans, as opposed to enhancing their social or reproductive dynamics. This could be achieved using nootropics, somatic gene therapy, or braincomputer interfaces. However, Bostrom expresses skepticism about the scalability of the first two approaches, and argues that designing a superintelligent cyborg interface is an AI-complete problem.
Most surveyed AI researchers expect machines to eventually be able to rival humans in intelligence, though there is little consensus on when this will likely happen. At the 2006 AI@50 conference, 18% of attendees reported expecting machines to be able "to simulate learning and every other aspect of human intelligence" by 2056; 41% of attendees expected this to happen sometime after 2056; and 41% expected machines to never reach that milestone.
In a survey of the 100 most cited authors in AI (as of May 2013, according to Microsoft academic search), the median year by which respondents expected machines "that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human" (assuming no global catastrophe occurs) with 10% confidence is 2024 (mean 2034, st. dev. 33 years), with 50% confidence is 2050 (mean 2072, st. dev. 110 years), and with 90% confidence is 2070 (mean 2168, st. dev. 342 years). These estimates exclude the 1.2% of respondents who said no year would ever reach 10% confidence, the 4.1% who said 'never' for 50% confidence, and the 16.5% who said 'never' for 90% confidence. Respondents assigned a median 50% probability to the possibility that machine superintelligence will be invented within 30 years of the invention of approximately human-level machine intelligence.
Bostrom expressed concern about what values a superintelligence should be designed to have. He compared several proposals:
Bostrom clarifies these terms:
instead of implementing humanity's coherent extrapolated volition, one could try to build an AI with the goal of doing what is morally right, relying on the AIs superior cognitive capacities to figure out just which actions fit that description. We can call this proposal moral rightness (MR)...MR would also appear to have some disadvantages. It relies on the notion of morally right, a notoriously difficult concept, one with which philosophers have grappled since antiquity without yet attaining consensus as to its analysis. Picking an erroneous explication of moral rightness could result in outcomes that would be morally very wrong... The path to endowing an AI with any of these [moral] concepts might involve giving it general linguistic ability (comparable, at least, to that of a normal human adult). Such a general ability to understand natural language could then be used to understand what is meant by morally right. If the AI could grasp the meaning, it could search for actions that fit...
One might try to preserve the basic idea of the MR model while reducing its demandingness by focusing on moral permissibility: the idea being that we could let the AI pursue humanitys CEV so long as it did not act in ways that are morally impermissible.
Responding to Bostrom, Santos-Lang raised concern that developers may attempt to start with a single kind of superintelligence.
It has been suggested that if AI systems rapidly become superintelligent, they may take unforeseen actions or out-compete humanity. Researchers have argued that, by way of an "intelligence explosion," a self-improving AI could become so powerful as to be unstoppable by humans.
Concerning human extinction scenarios, Bostrom (2002) identifies superintelligence as a possible cause:
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.
In theory, since a superintelligent AI would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its goals, many uncontrolled, unintended consequences could arise. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference. Eliezer Yudkowsky illustrates such instrumental convergence as follows: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."
This presents the AI control problem: how to build an intelligent agent that will aid its creators, while avoiding inadvertently building a superintelligence that will harm its creators. The danger of not designing control right "the first time," is that a superintelligence may be able to seize power over its environment and prevent humans from shutting it down. Potential AI control strategies include "capability control" (limiting an AI's ability to influence the world) and "motivational control" (building an AI whose goals are aligned with human values).
Bill Hibbard advocates for public education about superintelligence and public control over the development of superintelligence.
Go here to read the rest:
- Can Apocalypse Be Dealt With? The Diplomat - The Diplomat - October 19th, 2020
- Thirty books to help us understand the world in 2020 - The Guardian - October 19th, 2020
- These Are The 10 Highest-Paid Actresses Of 2020 - Marie Claire - October 19th, 2020
- Forbes 10 highest-paid actresses of 2020 have been revealed - The Independent - October 10th, 2020
- Hulk Just Exploded Into Bits and Pieces in The Immortal Hulk #35 - Screen Rant - August 10th, 2020
- Should You Get Down (And Occasionally Dirty) With Star Trek: Lower Decks? - PRIMETIMER - August 7th, 2020
- The Era Of Autonomous Army Bots is Here - Forbes - August 6th, 2020
- AI Could Overtake Humans in 5 Years, Says Elon Musk, Whose 'Top Concern' is Google-Owned DeepMind - International Business Times, Singapore Edition - August 5th, 2020
- Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies by Nick Bostrom - July 31st, 2020
- Artificial Intelligence - A Way To Superintelligence ... - July 31st, 2020
- AI governance and the future of humanity with the Rockefeller Foundations senior VP of innovation - The Sociable - July 31st, 2020
- neXt Trailer: It's Not Paranoia If The Threat Is Real - Bleeding Cool News - July 27th, 2020
- The Famous AI Turing Test Put In Reverse And Upside-Down, Plus Implications For Self-Driving Cars - Forbes - July 21st, 2020
- Scoop: Coming Up on a Rebroadcast of MATCH GAME on ABC - Sunday, July 26, 2020 - Broadway World - July 17th, 2020
- Consciousness Existing Beyond Matter, Or in the Central Nervous System as an Afterthought of Nature? - The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel - July 17th, 2020
- If you can't beat 'em, join 'em Elon Musk tweets out the mission statement for his AI-brain-chip Neuralink - Business Insider India - July 13th, 2020
- The Shadow of Progress - Merion West - July 13th, 2020
- Josiah Henson: the forgotten story in the history of slavery - The Guardian - June 21st, 2020
- The world's best virology lab isn't where you think - Spectator.co.uk - April 3rd, 2020
- Is Artificial Intelligence (AI) A Threat To Humans? - Forbes - March 4th, 2020
- Elon Musk dings Bill Gates and says their conversations were underwhelming, after the Microsoft billionaire buys an electric Porsche - Pulse Nigeria - February 18th, 2020
- Thinking Beyond Flesh and Bones with AI - Ghana Latest Football News, Live Scores, Results - Ghanasoccernet.com - February 18th, 2020
- Liquid metal tendons could give robots the ability to heal themselves - Digital Trends - December 21st, 2019
- NIU expert: 4 leaps in technology to expect in the 2020s | NIU - NIU Newsroom - December 21st, 2019
- Playing Tetris Shows That True AI Is Impossible - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence - December 21st, 2019
- AI R&D is booming, but general intelligence is still out of reach - The Verge - December 18th, 2019
- Doubting The AI Mystics: Dramatic Predictions About AI Obscure Its Concrete Benefits - Forbes - December 5th, 2019
- Melissa McCarthy And Ben Falcone Have Decided To Release 'Superintelligence' Via HBO Max Ins - Science Fiction - October 24th, 2019
- Melissa McCarthy & Director Ben Falcone On Choosing HBO Max Bow Instead Of WB Xmas Release For Superintelligence - Deadline - October 24th, 2019
- AMC Is Still In the Theater Business, But VOD Is a Funny Way of Showing It - IndieWire - October 24th, 2019
- Idiot Box: HBO Max joins the flood of streaming services - Weekly Alibi - October 24th, 2019
- Here's How to Watch Watchmen, HBOs Next Game of Thrones - Cosmopolitan - October 24th, 2019
- The Best Artificial Intelligence Books you Need to Read Today - Edgy Labs - October 22nd, 2019
- Aquinas' Fifth Way: The Proof from Specification - Discovery Institute - October 22nd, 2019
- Elon Musk warns 'advanced A.I.' will soon manipulate social media - Big Think - October 1st, 2019
- Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies - Wikipedia - May 3rd, 2019
- Global Risks Report 2017 - Reports - World Economic Forum - March 6th, 2019
- Superintelligence - Hardcover - Nick Bostrom - Oxford ... - March 6th, 2019
- The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1 - Wait But Why - November 3rd, 2018
- Superintelligence: From Chapter Eight of Films from the ... - October 11th, 2018
- Amazon.com: Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies ... - August 18th, 2018
- Superintelligence survey - Future of Life Institute - June 23rd, 2018
- Artificial Superintelligence: The Coming Revolution ... - June 3rd, 2018
- Steam Workshop :: Superintelligence - February 15th, 2018
- Steam Workshop :: Superintelligence (BNW) - February 15th, 2018
- The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence | Inverse - August 25th, 2017
- Friendly artificial intelligence - Wikipedia - August 25th, 2017
- Being human in the age of artificial intelligence - Science Weekly podcast - The Guardian - August 25th, 2017
- Why won't everyone listen to Elon Musk about the robot apocalypse? - Ladders - August 25th, 2017
- Infographic: Visualizing the Massive $15.7 Trillion Impact of AI - Visual Capitalist (blog) - August 25th, 2017
- The Musk/Zuckerberg Dustup Represents a Growing Schism in AI - Motherboard - August 4th, 2017
- The end of humanity as we know it is 'coming in 2045' and Google is preparing for it - Metro - July 27th, 2017
- Will we be wiped out by machine overlords? Maybe we need a ... - PBS NewsHour - July 22nd, 2017
- Giving Up the Fags: A Self-Reflexive Speech on Critical Auto-ethnography About the Shame of Growing up Gay/Sexual ... - The Good Men Project (blog) - July 22nd, 2017
- AI researcher: Why should a superintelligence keep us around? - TNW - July 18th, 2017
- What an artificial intelligence researcher fears about AI - Huron Daily ... - Huron Daily Tribune - July 16th, 2017
- Integrating disciplines 'key to dealing with digital revolution' | Times ... - Times Higher Education (THE) - July 4th, 2017
- No need to fear Artificial Intelligence - Livemint - Livemint - June 30th, 2017
- Effective Altruism Says You Can Save the Future by Making Money - Motherboard - June 20th, 2017
- The bots are coming - The New Indian Express - June 20th, 2017
- U.S. Navy reaches out to gamers to troubleshoot post ... - June 18th, 2017
- Facebook Chatbots Spontaneously Invent Their Own Non-Human ... - Interesting Engineering - June 17th, 2017
- Cars 3 gets back to what made the franchise adequate - Vox - June 13th, 2017
- Using AI to unlock human potential - EJ Insight - June 9th, 2017
- Are You Ready for the AI Revolution and the Rise of Superintelligence? - TrendinTech - June 7th, 2017
- A reply to Wait But Why on machine superintelligence - June 6th, 2017
- The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence (PDF) - June 6th, 2017
- How humans will lose control of artificial intelligence - The Week Magazine - April 8th, 2017
- The Nonparametric Intuition: Superintelligence and Design Methodology - Lifeboat Foundation (blog) - April 8th, 2017
- Who is afraid of AI? - The Hindu - April 8th, 2017
- The AI debate must stay grounded in reality - Prospect - March 8th, 2017
- Superintelligence | Guardian Bookshop - March 7th, 2017
- Supersentience - March 7th, 2017
- Horst Simon to Present Supercomputers and Superintelligence at PASC17 in Lugano - insideHPC - March 3rd, 2017
- Softbank CEO: The Singularity Will Happen by 2047 - Futurism - March 2nd, 2017
- Disruptive by Design: Siri, Tell Me a Joke. No, Not That One. - Signal Magazine - March 2nd, 2017
- Tech Leaders Raise Concern About the Dangers of AI - iDrop News - March 2nd, 2017
- Superintelligent AI explains Softbank's push to raise a $100BN ... - TechCrunch - February 28th, 2017
- Building A 'Collective Superintelligence' For Doctors And Patients Around The World - Forbes - February 28th, 2017
- Don't Fear Superintelligent AICCT News - CCT News - February 27th, 2017