Really easy fix there. We can just, by definition, define a superintelligent AI as one that does not perform action X anyway.
But I noticed that you mentioned super-LLM instead of superintelligence. Are we saying a superintelligence is one that doesn’t accidentally delete humanity, because it has an in-the-world notion of what that means?
I don’t get the point of the re-definition. What’s to stop an AI company from building an AI that vastly surpasses humans on all capabilities and has the power to kill all humans and does in fact kill all humans? Saying it’s “not superintelligent by definition” doesn’t get us anything.
But I noticed that you mentioned super-LLM instead of superintelligence.
By “super-LLM”, I mean an AI that has roughly the same architecture as modern-day LLMs, but that’s superintelligent.
My argument is that you are using the notion of superintelligence to abstract away too many things. What is a superintelligent LLM? But I think everyone else in the comments section is already grilling you on this.
Really easy fix there. We can just, by definition, define a superintelligent AI as one that does not perform action X anyway.
But I noticed that you mentioned super-LLM instead of superintelligence. Are we saying a superintelligence is one that doesn’t accidentally delete humanity, because it has an in-the-world notion of what that means?
I don’t get the point of the re-definition. What’s to stop an AI company from building an AI that vastly surpasses humans on all capabilities and has the power to kill all humans and does in fact kill all humans? Saying it’s “not superintelligent by definition” doesn’t get us anything.
By “super-LLM”, I mean an AI that has roughly the same architecture as modern-day LLMs, but that’s superintelligent.
My argument is that you are using the notion of superintelligence to abstract away too many things. What is a superintelligent LLM? But I think everyone else in the comments section is already grilling you on this.
(See Arguing “By Definition” for some background)