Roman Yampolsky
speaker
257 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jun 2024
last heard Jun 2024
Roman Yampolsky’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
Superintelligence was defined as a system which is superior to all humans in all domains. Now people are starting to refer to AGI as if it's superintelligence. I made a post recently where I argued, for me at least, if you average out over all the common human tasks, those systems are already smarter than an average human. So under that definition, we have it.
Shane Lake has this definition of where you're trying to win in all domains. That's what intelligence is. Now, are they smarter than elite individuals in certain domains? Of course not. They're not there yet. But the progress is exponential.
That would be enough to bootstrap the whole process.
Human level is general in the domain of expertise of humans. We know how to do human things. I don't speak dog language. I should be able to pick it up if I'm a general intelligence. It's kind of inferior animal. I should be able to learn that skill, but I can't. A general intelligence, truly universal general intelligence, should be able to do things like that humans cannot do.
To solve pattern recognition problems of that type, to do other similar things outside of our domain of expertise, because it's just not the world we live in.
We know calculators are smarter than humans in that narrow domain of addition.
So when I think about it, I usually think human with a paper and a pencil, not human with internet and other AI helping.
But we create AI. So at any point, you'll still just add superintelligence to human capability? That seems like cheating.
It seems like a hybrid of some kind. You're now doing brain-computer interfaces. You're connecting it to maybe narrow AIs. Yeah, it definitely increases our capabilities.
I am old fashioned. I like Turing test. I have a paper where I equate passing Turing test to solving AI complete problems, because you can encode any questions about any domain into the Turing test. You don't have to talk about how was your day? You can ask anything. And so the system has to be as smart as a human to pass it in a true sense.
It has to be long enough to where you can make some meaningful decisions about capabilities, absolutely. You can brute force very short conversations.
For AGI, it has to be there. I cannot give it a task I can give to a human, and it cannot do it if a human can. For superintelligence, it would be superior on all such tasks, not just average performance. Go learn to drive a car. Go speak Chinese. Play guitar. Okay, great.
You can develop a test which will give you positives if it lies to you or has those ideas. You cannot develop a test which rules them out. There is always possibility of what Bostrom calls a treacherous turn, where later on a system decides for game theoretic reasons, economic reasons to change its behavior. And we see the same with humans. It's not unique to AI.
For millennia, we tried developing morals, ethics, religions, lie detector tests, and then employees betray the employers, spouses betray family. It's a pretty standard thing intelligent agents sometimes do.
If you know the truth and it tells you something false, you can detect that, but you cannot know in general every single time. And again, the system you're testing today may not be lying, The system you're testing today may know you are testing it and so behaving.
And later on, after it interacts with the environment, interacts with other systems, malevolent agents, learns more, it may start doing those things.
So systems today don't have long-term planning. That is not our, they can lie today if it optimizes, helps them optimize the reward. If they realize, okay, this human will be very happy if I tell them the following, they will do it if it brings them more points. And they don't have to kind of keep track of it. It's just the right answer to this problem every single time.
Well, some people think that if they're that smart, they're always good. They really do believe that. It's just benevolence from intelligence. So they'll always want what's best for us. Some people think that they will be able to detect problem behaviors and correct them at the time when we get there. I don't think it's a good idea. I am strongly against it.
But yeah, there are quite a few people who, in general, are so optimistic about this technology, it could do no wrong. They want it developed as soon as possible, as capable as possible.
There are even people who say, okay, what's so special about humans, right? We removed the gender bias. We're removing race bias. Why is this pro-human bias? We are polluting the planet. We are, as you said, you know, fight a lot of wars, kind of violent. Maybe it's better if a super intelligent, perfect society comes and replaces us. It's normal stage in the evolution of our species.
Showing 41–60 of 257 · page 3 of 13
← Previous
Next →