The Power of Intelligence

[Boltzmann]

The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : The Power of Intelligence

In our skulls we carry around 3 pounds of slimy, wet, greyish tissue, corrugated like crumpled toilet paper. You wouldn’t think, to look at the unappetizing lump, that it was some of the most powerful stuff in the known universe. If you’d never seen an anatomy textbook, and you saw a brain lying in the street, you’d say “Yuck!” and try not to get any of it on your shoes. Aristotle thought the brain was an organ that cooled the blood. It doesn’t look dangerous.

Five million years ago, the ancestors of lions ruled the day, the ancestors of wolves roamed the night. The ruling predators were armed with teeth and claws - sharp, hard cutting edges, backed up by powerful muscles. Their prey, in self-defense, evolved armored shells, sharp horns, poisonous venoms, camouflage. The war had gone on through hundreds of eons and countless arms races. Many a loser had been removed from the game, but there was no sign of a winner. Where one species had shells, another species would evolve to crack them; where one species became poisonous, another would evolve to tolerate the poison. Each species had its private niche - for who could live in the seas and the skies and the land at once? There was no ultimate weapon and no ultimate defense and no reason to believe any such thing was possible.

Then came the Day of the Squishy Things.

They had no armor. They had no claws. They had no venoms.

If you saw a movie of a nuclear explosion going off, and you were told an Earthly life form had done it, you would never in your wildest dreams imagine that the Squishy Things could be responsible. After all, Squishy Things aren’t radioactive.

In the beginning, the Squishy Things had no fighter jets, no machine guns, no rifles, no swords. No bronze, no iron. No hammers, no anvils, no tongs, no smithies, no mines. All the Squishy Things had were squishy fingers - too weak to break a tree, let alone a mountain. Clearly not dangerous. To cut stone you would need steel, and the Squishy Things couldn’t excrete steel. In the environment there were no steel blades for Squishy fingers to pick up. Their bodies could not generate temperatures anywhere near hot enough to melt metal. The whole scenario was obviously absurd.

And as for the Squishy Things manipulating DNA - that would have been beyond ridiculous. Squishy fingers are not that small. There is no access to DNA from the Squishy level; it would be like trying to pick up a hydrogen atom. Oh, technically it’s all one universe, technically the Squishy Things and DNA are part of the same world, the same unified laws of physics, the same great web of causality. But let’s be realistic: you can’t get there from here.

Even if Squishy Things could someday evolve to do any of those feats, it would take thousands of millennia. We have watched the ebb and flow of Life through the eons, and let us tell you, a year is not even a single clock tick of evolutionary time. Oh, sure, technically a year is six hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion Planck intervals. But nothing ever happens in less than six hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion Planck intervals, so it’s a moot point. The Squishy Things, as they run across the savanna now, will not fly across continents for at least another ten million years; no one could have that much sex.

Now explain to me again why an Artificial Intelligence can’t do anything interesting over the Internet unless a human programmer builds it a robot body.

I have observed that someone’s flinch-reaction to “intelligence” - the thought that crosses their mind in the first half-second after they hear the word “intelligence” - often determines their flinch-reaction to the Singularity. Often they look up the keyword “intelligence” and retrieve the concept booksmarts - a mental image of the Grand Master chessplayer who can’t get a date, or a college professor who can’t survive outside academia.

“It takes more than intelligence to succeed professionally,” people say, as if charisma resided in the kidneys, rather than the brain. “Intelligence is no match for a gun,” they say, as if guns had grown on trees. “Where will an Artificial Intelligence get money?” they ask, as if the first Homo sapiens had found dollar bills fluttering down from the sky, and used them at convenience stores already in the forest. The human species was not born into a market economy. Bees won’t sell you honey if you offer them an electronic funds transfer. The human species imagined money into existence, and it exists - for us, not mice or wasps - because we go on believing in it.

I keep trying to explain to people that the archetype of intelligence is not Dustin Hoffman in The Rain Man, it is a human being, period. It is squishy things that explode in a vacuum, leaving footprints on their moon. Within that grey wet lump is the power to search paths through the great web of causality, and find a road to the seemingly impossible - the power sometimes called creativity.

People - venture capitalists in particular - sometimes ask how, if the Singularity Institute successfully builds a true AI, the results will be commercialized. This is what we call a framing problem.

Or maybe it’s something deeper than a simple clash of assumptions. With a bit of creative thinking, people can imagine how they would go about travelling to the Moon, or curing smallpox, or manufacturing computers. To imagine a trick that could accomplish all these things at once seems downright impossible - even though such a power resides only a few centimeters behind their own eyes. The gray wet thing still seems mysterious to the gray wet thing.

And so, because people can’t quite see how it would all work, the power of intelligence seems less real; harder to imagine than a tower of fire sending a ship to Mars. The prospect of visiting Mars captures the imagination. But if one should promise a Mars visit, and also a grand unified theory of physics, and a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, and a cure for obesity, and a cure for cancer, and a cure for aging, and a cure for stupidity - well, it just sounds wrong, that’s all.

And well it should. It’s a serious failure of imagination to think that intelligence is good for so little. Who could have imagined, ever so long ago, what minds would someday do? We may not even know what our real problems are.

But meanwhile, because it’s hard to see how one process could have such diverse powers, it’s hard to imagine that one fell swoop could solve even such prosaic problems as obesity and cancer and aging.

Well, one trick cured smallpox and built airplanes and cultivated wheat and tamed fire. Our current science may not agree yet on how exactly the trick works, but it works anyway. If you are temporarily ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about your current state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon. A blank map does not correspond to a blank territory. If one does not quite understand that power which put footprints on the Moon, nonetheless, the footprints are still there - real footprints, on a real Moon, put there by a real power. If one were to understand deeply enough, one could create and shape that power. Intelligence is as real as electricity. It’s merely far more powerful, far more dangerous, has far deeper implications for the unfolding story of life in the universe - and it’s a tiny little bit harder to figure out how to build a generator.

It's too bad that many people can't see the power in our brains and must resort to mysticism, immortal souls and bearded guys in the sky.... We surely have the potential to go beyond it all.

[Coolsvilleman]

Good article. I agree with alot of what is said, and even the stuff I don't agree with I'll keep an open mind to in the future. I totally agree that an A.I. can be created within computers and then move onto the net. For isn't that what are squishy things are, Mechanics and energy.

[The Magic Hobo]

Originally Posted by Boltzmann

It's too bad that many people can't see the power in our brains and must resort to mysticism, immortal souls and bearded guys in the sky.... We surely have the potential to go beyond it all.

True true, if people want to be hippies and believe in stuff like the healing power of crystals, let them. The brain really is a amazing though, I once read a quote from somewhere(Cant remember where) : "If our brains were simple enough to understand, we'd be so simple, we couldnt". Says it all really.

And as for AI, I too think it is within our grasp to create a fully independent AI, but I dont see it happening any time soon.

[Coolsvilleman]

Originally Posted by The Magic Hobo

"If our brains were simple enough to understand, we'd be so simple, we couldnt". Says it all really.

I like that quote.

Originally Posted by The Magic Hobo

"
And as for AI, I too think it is within our grasp to create a fully independent AI, but I dont see it happening any time soon.

I see it happening very soon. Within the next 10-15 years. I think the current problem is that its based mostly on statistics and programming in every possible path of events that can occur instead of focusing on programming the machine to be able to re-program itself and therefore evolve.

[The Magic Hobo]

Originally Posted by Coolsvilleman

I see it happening very soon. Within the next 10-15 years. I think the current problem is that its based mostly on statistics and programming in every possible path of events that can occur instead of focusing on programming the machine to be able to re-program itself and therefore evolve.

I will use my new 1337 coding skills to do it! Actually, if I were to try to do it, I would have to use an if function for every possible combonation of words in the english language But the thought of AI seems to me, like a very difficult thing to reach, I mean, even now, there are some quite inpressive AI's, like ALICE,which I pressume works on the principle of(like you said) being programmed for every possible path of events, but can todays pc's/programming languages handle something that could alter its self and "evolve"?

EDIT: I like that quote as well, I might translate it to latin and make it my new sig

[Coolsvilleman]

Originally Posted by The Magic Hobo

I will use my new 1337 coding skills to do it! Actually, if I were to try to do it, I would have to use an if function for every possible combonation of words in the english language But the thought of AI seems to me, like a very difficult thing to reach, I mean, even now, there are some quite inpressive AI's, like ALICE,which I pressume works on the principle of(like you said) being prgrammed for every possible path of event, but can todays pc's/programming languages handle something that could alter its self and "evolve"?

Your right, ALICE is no where near what I would call AI. Its basically just a million text event hard-coded into a database with a standard set of responses associated with them. To me ALICE is a glorified chat-bot.

I don't think that we would need much more extra computing power to create some form of an AI. To create one at the human level may require more hardware but to just create a self-evolving program or set of programs I don't think we need much more. People tend to have this idea that if it hasn't been done on today's hardware by big companies and smart individuals that it can't be done at all. I think thats a grosse misconception.

[The Magic Hobo]

Your right, I think its more along the lines of no big companies/induviduals are willing to devote all thier time/money into something with very few benifits of having. But saying that, true AI could revolutionise how we live, having robots peforming tasks that are usually dangerous/boring for a human. But then it goes down the line of what if they rebelled, what if this AI we create and utillise turns on us?

[Coolsvilleman]

Originally Posted by The Magic Hobo

Your right, I think its more along the lines of no big companies/induviduals are willing to devote all thier time/money into something with very benifits of having.

I think alot of big companies fail to see the long-term benefits of an A.I.. Or maybe they think it may later become a security risk if it decides thats its had enough. Eithier way though its not around yet. Though some companies and research labs are getting closer and closer. Let's just say that there is a way better chance of having A.I. in 10 years than there is of curing cancer or AIDS. Do you remember technology 10, 20 years ago. I do and boy has it exploded since then.

[The Magic Hobo]

Technoilgy has come along way in the 20 odd years. And I think your right, AI might be more achievable, but everyone is going to concentrate more on curing AIDS and cancer, because they are more important. But who's to say that an AI wouldnt be useful as well, have a huge number of AI's running at one time like a huge supercomputer, working towards curing AIDS/cancer, AI's never need to eat/sleep or stop do they? Meaning advances could be made without people having to spend as long on the subject as they would have to. But I suppose any real form of intelligence wouldn't start off with a mind like Stephen Hawking, they would have to be taught, which I would imagine take time, unless considering that it is computer controlled intelligence, it could be created with a vast knowledge of things, i think Im going abit deep inot the subject, but I think that these are things that should be taken into account when disscussing AI.

EDIT:It seems that there are more comlpex ways of creating inteligence, take a look at this, its beyond my understanding, but soemthing that complex has to be good Also take notice of the links at the bottom of the page,there are some quite interesting things.

[Boltzmann]

Originally Posted by The Magic Hobo

Your right, I think its more along the lines of no big companies/induviduals are willing to devote all thier time/money into something with very few benifits of having. But saying that, true AI could revolutionise how we live, having robots peforming tasks that are usually dangerous/boring for a human. But then it goes down the line of what if they rebelled, what if this AI we create and utillise turns on us?

Well, now you're just rationalizing from fictional evidence (e.g. bad AI movies/books). An AI is not just a faster version of a human mind. It's another mind type entirely. See The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : Hollywood AI: Off-Label Use Considered Harmful

As for the feasibility of creating an AI, my position falls somewhere near Coolsvilleman's, although I'm really lacking the time to explain it thoroughly.

[blueshogun96]

I bet there is a cure for AIDS already. Boltzmann is just holding out on us

[Proto]

your comment is quite a lot out of place though. To be thrutful, it's the worst straw man argument I've seen ever, in more than one sense :/

Returning to the main point, as an AI researcher myself I cannot help but hearfully agreeing with what the ideas the author is exposing. People may still disagree on the reason, but I can say with confidence that we all agree on the power of creation that we possess. The power to imagine, to grasp nature and improve it, to hold ourselves and embrace ourselves into a future of better men, better people. People have grown so used to the idea of human beings that we have forgotten that we are nothing but another link into a continuous evolution chain. Why not just grabbing the chain and deciding where the next link should head, instead of leaving it to some random process or your unkown miracle of the day?

[Seta-San]

you know, not everyone is drawn towards science, computer programming, and engineering. that said, having religion around shouldn't change anything. these people, if it weren't for religion, might have ended up as just another burger flipper or having some other mediocre job.

Originally Posted by Boltzmann

The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : The Power of Intelligence



It's too bad that many people can't see the power in our brains and must resort to mysticism, immortal souls and bearded guys in the sky.... We surely have the potential to go beyond it all.

[Boltzmann]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

you know, not everyone is drawn towards science, computer programming, and engineering. that said, having religion around shouldn't change anything. these people, if it weren't for religion, might have ended up as just another burger flipper or having some other mediocre job.

Well, look at the Dark Ages. That's what you get when religious types rule everyone else.

But that's not the point of the thread anyway. The point is that we have no need for religion. We must take our future in our hands and do something about it, rather than just wait for the rapture.

[Seta-San]

and i'm asking what's stopping us from moving forword to the future while those who are predisposed to waiting for the rapture wait endlessly for the end that isn't coming? It' what we're doing now anyway. The dark ages, btw, aren't the dark ages because of religion. There was an economic down fall in the west what the roman empire collapsed. The west had little infrastructure other than some roads. The west's dark ages was the East's greatest time and they still had religion.

Originally Posted by Boltzmann

Well, look at the Dark Ages. That's what you get when religious types rule everyone else.

But that's not the point of the thread anyway. The point is that we have no need for religion. We must take our future in our hands and do something about it, rather than just wait for the rapture.

[Boltzmann]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

and i'm asking what's stopping us from moving forword to the future while those who are predisposed to waiting for the rapture wait endlessly for the end that isn't coming?

Because these people often get into positions of power, and they tend to legislate against progress. See Bush's bioethics council, for instance.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

The dark ages, btw, aren't the dark ages because of religion.

Tell this to those who died by the hands of the church

[Seta-San]

there's already stem cell lines available for study. bush is simply objected to opening any more for the time being since new lines aren't any more or less likely to provide results.

Originally Posted by Boltzmann

Because these people often get into positions of power, and they tend to legislate against progress. See Bush's bioethics council, for instance.

The darkages wasn't the darkages by how people died due to the church. the dark ages was a time of almost no sort of learning, economic depression, and civil unrest. The Catholic Church was the height of learning. The Church studied all sorts of science from astronomy to biology. The church is, particularly a priest (Gregor Mendel), responsible for discovering genetic inheritance which made the base for evolution. They also made many universities across europe to encourage learning and study.

Meanwhile in the East where there was a far better social/economic situation learning flourished under Islam. They people in India invented today's numbering system by Hindu monks. The Muslims in the middle east invented algebra out of those numbers and Christains in the west further advanced math by carving out Calculus

On top of all that they copied and wrote books. The church is also responsible for the archetecture found throughout europe that americans pay thousands of dollars to see in person. And the church provided a back bone throughout all of europe that stopped it from further degenerating.

Originally Posted by Boltzmann

Tell this to those who died by the hands of the church

In short your views on religion are shallow, biased, and short sighted considering the history of religion and learning.