The post is an intuition pump for the idea that intelligence enables capabilities that look like “magic.”
It seems to me that all it really demonstrates is that some people have capabilities that look like magic, within domains where they are highly specialized to succeed. The only example that seems particularly dangerous (El Chapo) does not seem convincingly connected to intelligence. I am also not sure what the chess example is supposed to prove—we already have chess engines that can defeat multiple people at once blindfolded, including (presumably) Magnus Carlsen. Are those chess engines smarter than Magnus Carlsen? No.
This kind of nitpick is important precisely because the argument is so vague and intuitive. Its pushing on a fuzzy abstraction that intelligence is dangerous in a way that seems convincing only if you’ve already accepted a certain model of intelligence. The detailed arguments don’t seem to work.
The conclusion that AGI may be able to do things that seem like magic to us is probably right, but this post does not hold up to scrutiny as an intuition pump.
The only example that seems particularly dangerous (El Chapo) does not seem convincingly connected to intelligence
I’d say “being able to navigate a highly complex network of agents, a lot of which are adversaries” counts as “intelligence”. Well, one form of intelligence, at least.
This point suggests alternative models for risks and opportunities from “AI”. If deep learning applied to various narrow problems is a new source of various superhuman capabilities, that has a lot of implications for the future of the world, setting “AGI” aside.
The post is an intuition pump for the idea that intelligence enables capabilities that look like “magic.”
It seems to me that all it really demonstrates is that some people have capabilities that look like magic, within domains where they are highly specialized to succeed. The only example that seems particularly dangerous (El Chapo) does not seem convincingly connected to intelligence. I am also not sure what the chess example is supposed to prove—we already have chess engines that can defeat multiple people at once blindfolded, including (presumably) Magnus Carlsen. Are those chess engines smarter than Magnus Carlsen? No.
This kind of nitpick is important precisely because the argument is so vague and intuitive. Its pushing on a fuzzy abstraction that intelligence is dangerous in a way that seems convincing only if you’ve already accepted a certain model of intelligence. The detailed arguments don’t seem to work.
The conclusion that AGI may be able to do things that seem like magic to us is probably right, but this post does not hold up to scrutiny as an intuition pump.
I’d say “being able to navigate a highly complex network of agents, a lot of which are adversaries” counts as “intelligence”. Well, one form of intelligence, at least.
This point suggests alternative models for risks and opportunities from “AI”. If deep learning applied to various narrow problems is a new source of various superhuman capabilities, that has a lot of implications for the future of the world, setting “AGI” aside.