[didn’t downvote—it’s already negative. but I’d like to explain why I think it should be negative. ]
I don’t think “stupid” is a useful descriptor in this context, and this post does nothing to explain or understand what elements of decision or intent we should be looking at. I can’t tell what is being said, nor what definitions would become apparent if you taboo’d “stupid” and “intelligent”.
I’m trying to express that typically people think about systems with very high cognitive power (relative to humans), but it could be interesting/useful to consider what very low cognitive power systems are like. Looking at such extreme cases can inform things such as the type signature of intelligence/agency/etc. The post is me trying to think through this and noticing that low cognitive power systems are hard to characterize, e.g. give a superintelligence the right goal and it can behave like a low cognitive power system.
[didn’t downvote—it’s already negative. but I’d like to explain why I think it should be negative. ]
I don’t think “stupid” is a useful descriptor in this context, and this post does nothing to explain or understand what elements of decision or intent we should be looking at. I can’t tell what is being said, nor what definitions would become apparent if you taboo’d “stupid” and “intelligent”.
Thanks Dagon, I appreciate the concrete feedback.
I’m trying to express that typically people think about systems with very high cognitive power (relative to humans), but it could be interesting/useful to consider what very low cognitive power systems are like. Looking at such extreme cases can inform things such as the type signature of intelligence/agency/etc. The post is me trying to think through this and noticing that low cognitive power systems are hard to characterize, e.g. give a superintelligence the right goal and it can behave like a low cognitive power system.