Give the “AI” the resource to manifest itself in the real world and act in much the same way the human would (with all the benefits of having a computer for a brain)...
So we are left with approach (3), giving our hypothetical AGI the physical resources to put its humanity-changing ideas into practice. But… who’s going to give away those resources ? Based on what proof ?
We already connect AI systems to the real world, for example Facebook’s algorithms that learn based on user behavior. There’s nothing implausible about this.
Besides that:
They [humans] are capable of creating new modified version of themselves, updating their own algorithms...
Human ability to self-modify is very limited. Most of our algorithms are opaque to our conscious mind.
...I would say it’s highly unlikely that the definition of intelligence exists.
There is already progress in defining intelligence, starting from Legg and Hutter 2007.
What’s truly jarring, though, is the passage
Have you ever heard of Marilyn vos Savant or Chris Langan or Terence Tao or William James Sidis or Kim Ung-yong ? These are, as far as IQ tests are concerned, the most intelligence members that our species currently contains.
While I won’t question their presumed intelligence, I can safely say their achievements are rather unimpressive.
Terence Tao is a fields medalist. You bet I heard of Tao. If a Fields Medal is “rather unimpressive”, I can’t imagine what is impressive.
The entire argument seems to boil down to
We already connect AI systems to the real world, for example Facebook’s algorithms that learn based on user behavior. There’s nothing implausible about this.
Besides that:
Human ability to self-modify is very limited. Most of our algorithms are opaque to our conscious mind.
There is already progress in defining intelligence, starting from Legg and Hutter 2007.
What’s truly jarring, though, is the passage
Terence Tao is a fields medalist. You bet I heard of Tao. If a Fields Medal is “rather unimpressive”, I can’t imagine what is impressive.