undefined

points

[-]

If AGI means that AI+robotics can robustly substitute for human labor, and robots are cheaper and faster to build than humans, then (a) anyone ruthless enough can zerg rush and defeat any nations that don't discard humans, (b) no one without a massive robot army will be needed in any way by their rulers. If this isn't a recipe for a horrific outcome, what is?

by sometimelurker6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> defeat any nations that don't discard humans

AGI doesn't do away with nuclear MAD, it just messes with economics and makes many people temporarily jobless. Temporarily because in a literal sense RLVR needs verification to train off of, and a lot of jobs cant be easily checked if theyre done. this includes AI safety people, preschool teachers, psychologists, and probably a lot more, including most of their bosses

by throwaway2744815 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It's not even clear that ASI is a coherent concept.

But, I don't trust capital with either.

by sometimelurker6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

LLM + scale = more intelligent, this can be proven more than empirically, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15318 shows that neural nets can fit a number of independent AND-gate operations in their weights,

- if you have a system that is large enough to store, lets say 10^12 AND gates (all frontier llms can do this) - and this system can produce outputs based on previous things it has outputed

its turning complete, and RLVR on it is optimization over the space of algorithms. If an algorithm exists to do a task, and the task can be verifiably done, this finds the algorithm to solve the task most often.

it is obvious that this scales, from much-worse-than-human to slightly-worse-than-human, therefore it 100% can exceed humans.

by ajyoon14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

What about it is not coherent?

by throwaway2744813 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's not clear that "super intelligence" is a meaningful concept. This presumes that our concept of intelligence can continue to grow beyond human capacity as opposed to asymptotically approaching what humans recognize as "very intelligent". Perhaps, for instance, how we evaluate intelligence is bounded not by some quantitative capacity but rather our inability to agree on basic concepts/values. And do we even have tasks that a supposed superintelligence can tackle but humans cannot?

I predict that what we consider "super intelligence" is just sheer computational power, but any potential of a very capable agent is bounded by the needs/wants of the person wielding it. That is: even if we were to hand, say, Elon musk this "super intelligence", most humans would consider it relatively stupid because the person wielding it is still a person with stupid goals and values.

Or, to put it another way, I suspect we already do have a superintelligence and have longer than any of us have been alive, and it's just "the market", and it is still incapable of overcoming the limitations of a few morons wielding immense power.... power they will never yield to some intelligence with values and goals "more intelligent" than their own (if such a concept is even meaningful), and intelligence wasted on the values and goals they do have.

by brookman64k10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The Orthogonality Thesis (by Nick Bostrom) says that intelligence and ultimate goals are independent. Those non-instrumental goals can’t be stupid nor right or wrong. Increasing intelligence will not change the goals only the capability to reach them.

by throwaway2744827 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Ok; what's his reasoning?

by aesthesia9 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Do note that the orthogonality thesis is a hypothesis, not something we have demonstrated. Weak versions of it (e.g. it is possible to have an intelligent agent with arbitrary goals) are more likely to be true than stronger versions (e.g. intelligent agents we build will have goals uniformly selected from the space of all possible goals).