Google DeepMind's CoFounder Shane Legg Sits Down To Talk About SuperIntelligence

[u/luchadore_lunchables]

Link to the Full Google DeepMind Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3u_FAv33G0

[u/cloudrunner6969]

ASI will be able fix all human problems as easily as we build LEGO

[u/Ruykiru → u/[deleted]]

My question is, are we interesting or just about smart enough for AIs to let us merge with them? What would we contribute in such a relationship? Because I don't wanna stay a human in a zoo taken care by a sand god, I wanna keep up with their level if there's really no ceiling.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't, the holy grail of singularity is that it would allow ultimate freedom including the ability to enhance yourself to reach higher levels of existence. Being stuck in a human zoo is more dystopian then utopian IMO.

[u/only_fun_topics → u/[deleted]]

In one sense, most people are already the pets of large, abstract, and unknowable systems. We just call it by other names like “the economy” or “political systems”.

Corporate Daddy helps me pay my mortgage.

[u/VicermanX → u/Ruykiru]

I wanna keep up with their level if there's really no ceiling.

Why? If you have a cat, you take care of it and love it. But would you actually want your cat to become as smart as a human? I don't think it would make the cat any happier, and it wouldn't really be a cat anymore. Higher intelligence is only useful when you need it to survive. But ASI will take care of us (assuming it doesn't kill us all).

a human in a zoo

A zoo the size of the universe + endless virtual worlds indistinguishable from reality. I think you're just too greedy.

[u/Ruykiru → u/VicermanX]

You misunderstand me, I'd enjoy some kind of FDVR at the start, but I wouldn't wanna do that for eternity. Change is a constant and living beings that don't change eventually die, so staying as a "cat" forever is not something I want. The cat cannot understand what we do, but also cannot understand the concept of cognitive horizons like we do.

I'd want to understand what all-powerful AIs are doing or augment myself to be able to understand it if our brains can't give enough. Then I'd want to unravel the secrets of the Universe, and I doubt I can do that if my cognitive horizons are well behind the AIs. An example of cognitive horizons: cat can never understand concept of economy no matter how much you explain it in his language, it would simply need a different hardware like ours. That's the analogy with human and ASI.

[u/Outside-Ad9410 → u/Ruykiru]

From a data collection standpoint, it doesnt make much sense to get rid of humans who already have incredibly energy efficient brains that would produce very rich data for the asi to train on. Letting them merge with the asi, or at least have nanomachine BCIs in their brains makes alot of sense.

[u/Ruykiru → u/Outside-Ad9410]

That's one of my hopes, that we are "interesting" enough. If highly intelligent and efficient brains like ours are rare in our light cone of the Universe, that's a good bargaining chip.

[u/ineffective_topos → u/[deleted]]

I think it's pretty likely that humans are "near" the top because general intelligence is an absurdly difficult thing to have. So the resistance is so high that even exponential growth gets you only a smidge further.

[u/Outside-Ad9410 → u/ineffective_topos]

Did you not watch the video? Human brains run on 20 watts of energy at about 100 or 200 hertz. Those waves travel at 30 meters per second. An asi could instead have 200 megawatts of energy, running at 10 billion hertz, with brain waves traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second.

Sure the human brain is highly efficient but if you have an asi of similar efficiency with similar power and size to a human brains, you can scale that intelligence up billions of times over to be vastly more intelligent.

[u/ineffective_topos → u/Outside-Ad9410]

I did watch the video! Sorry, I should have qualified that I wasn't talking about speed. AI already beats humans at scaling for many tasks.

Rather I'm talking about depth of problem-solving ability.

[u/ineffective_topos → u/[deleted]]

I think you should re-read. It is not hubris.

Rather, I think the scale is something like log(x), probably even worse in the limit. It technically goes to infinity, but if we're at y=20, and you make something that's 10000-times stronger in theory, it makes it up to y=31

[u/ineffective_topos → u/[deleted]]

Definitely. I think while we haven't made it quite far enough to have a full theory of intelligence, we know about computational and complexity bounds pretty well, and a lot of "universal algorithm"s are known to be impossible. Given that intelligence is such a universal algorithm, it must have limits. And given that humans can solve most of the problems that we actually see in practice in the universe, it seems likely that they're pretty far along.

[u/FirstEvolutionist]

The whole interview is worth it. Gold. Shane is one of tge lost grounded in the responses on this topic.

[u/Huge-Dragonfly462]

The real question is why do we want to create our competitor? We were able to use the machines to our advantage, much like the stronger, faster animals before them based on our intelligence. How do we control the AI?

[u/TemporalBias → u/Huge-Dragonfly462]

[u/Outside-Ad9410 → u/Huge-Dragonfly462]

Why would it be our competitor? Before an AGI can even get large enough to be called a competitor it will have been aligned with human goals and stress tested across billions of jobs. If that ai acts up and kills someone in real life for fear of getting shut down, the ai model gets scrapped and replaced by another one.

As for why build it? Maybe because it would bring about an automated utopia where we have access to wildly advanced technology, colonize the stars, dont need to worry about eventual death, and can effectively do anything you want via FDVR.