Artificial General Intelligence Is Here, and It's Useless

Artificial general intelligence is here, and it's useless https://cerebralab.com/Artificial_general_intelligence_is_here,_and_it...
1 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
2 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
your@ema.il Subscribe
3 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Add this blog to your rss feed
4 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Pollute your mind with some of my other missguided

creations on Github
5 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Contact me at: george@cerebralab.com
6 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Publicly berate me on Twitter

Previous | Series | About | Archives | Next
This blog is no longer active, you can find my new stuff at:
george3d6.com, epistem.ink, ontologi.cc, and
phenomenologi.cc
7 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Audio version
Artificial general intelligence

is here, and it's useless
One of the most misunderstood ideas that's polluting the
minds of popular "intellectuals", many of them seemingly
accustomed with statistics and machine learning, is the
potential or threat that developing an artificial general
intelligence (AGI) would present to our civilization.
This myth stems from two misunderstanding of reality.
One such misunderstanding is related to the refinement and

extensibility of current ML algorithms and FPA hardware,
however discussing that always leads of people arguing "what
ifs" (e.g What if cheap quantum computers with very efficient
I/O become a thing ?), thus, I won't pursue that line of thought
here.
A second, more easy to debunk misunderstanding, is related to

the practicality of an AGI. Assuming that our wildest dreams
of hardware were to come true... would we be able to create
and AGI and would this AGI actually have any effect upon the
world other than being a fun curiosity ?
8 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
1. We already have AGIs

AGI is here, as of the time of writing there are an estimate of
7,714,576,923 AGI algorithms residing upon our planet. You
can use the vast majority of them for less than 2$/hour. They
can accomplish the vast majority intellectual task that can be
well-defined by humans, not to mention they can invent new
tasks themselves.
They are capable of creating new modified version of

themselves, updating their own algorithms, sharing their
algorithms with other AGIs and learning new complex skills.
To add to that, they are energy efficient, you can keep one
running for optimally for 5 to 50$/day depending on location,
much less than your average server farm used to train a
complex ML model.
This is a rather obvious observation, but one that needs to be

noted nonetheless. Nobody has ever complained about the
severe lack of humans in the world. If I were to ask anyone
what they would envision as making a huge positive impact
upon the future, few would answer vastly increasing birth
rates.
So, if we are agreed on the fact that 70 billion people wouldn't

be much better than 7 billion, that is to say, adding brains
doesn't scale linearly... why are we under the assumption that
artificial brains would help ?
9 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
If we disagree on that assumption, than what's stopping the

value of human mental labor from sky-rocketing if it's in such
demand ? What's stopping hundreds of millions of people with
perfectly average working brains from finding employment ?
Well, you could argue, it's about the quality of the intelligence,
not all humans are intellectually equal. Having a few million
artificial Joe nobody wouldn't help the world much, but
having even a few dozen Von Neumanns would make a huge
difference. Or, even better, it's about having an AI that's more
intelligent than any human that we've yet encountered.
This leads me to my second point.
2. Defining intelligence
How does one define an intelligent human or intelligence in
general ?
An IQ test is the go-to measure of human intelligence used by

sociologists and psychologists.
However, algorithms can readily out-score humans in IQ tests,

for a very long time, and they are able to do so reliably with
more and more added constraints.
The problem here is that IQ tests are designed for humans...

not machines.
10 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
But, let's assume we come up with a "machine intelligence

quotient" (MIQ) test that our potential AGI friends cannot use
their perks to "cheat" on.
But how do we design it to avoid the pitfalls of a human IQ

test when taken to the extremes ? Our purpose, after all, is not
to "grade" algorithms with this test in a stagnant void, but to
improve them in such a way that scoring higher on the tests
means they are more "intelligent" in general.
In other words, this MIQ test needs to be very efficient at

spotting intelligence outliers.
If we come back to an IQ test, we'll notice it's rather

inaccurate at the thin ends of the distribution.
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.
Whilst I won't question their presumed intelligence, their

achievements are rather unimpressive. Go down the list of
high IQ individuals and what you'll mostly find is rather
mediocre people with a few highly interesting quirks (can
solve equations quickly, can speak a lot of languages, can
memorize a lot of things... etc).
There is most certainly an overlap between people that have

created impressive works of engineering, designed
11 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
foundational experiments, invented theories that explain

various natural phenomenon, became great leaders... etc (let's
call these people "intelligent", for the sake of brevity).
But IQ is not a predictor of that, it's more of a filter. You can

almost guarantee that a highly intelligent person (as viewed by
society) will have a high IQ, but having the highest IQ doesn't
even guarantee you will be in the top 0.x% of intelligent
people.
So even if we somehow manage to create this MIQ to be as

good of an indicator of whether or not a machine is intelligent
as IQ is for humans, it will still be a bad criterion of
benchmark against.
We might be able to say "An intelligent algorithm should have

an MIQ of at least 100", but we'll hardly be able to say
"Having an MIQ of 500 means that an algorithm has super-
human intelligence".
The problem is that we aren't intelligent enough to define

intelligent. If the definition of intelligence does exist, there is
no clear path to finding out what it is.
Even worse, I would say it's highly unlikely that the definition
of intelligence exists. What I might consider intelligent is not
what you would consider intelligent... our definitions may
overlap to some extent, we'll likely be able to come up with a
common definition of what constitutes "average" intelligence
(e.g. the IQ test), but they would diverge towards the tail.
12 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Most people will agree as to whether or not someone is

somewhat intelligent, but they will disagree to no end on a
"most intelligent people in the world" list.
Well, you may say, that could indeed be true, but we can judge
people by their achievements. We can disagree all day on
whether or not some high IQ individual like Chris Langan is a
quack numerologist or a misunderstood god. But we can all
agree that someone like Richard Feynman or Tom Mueller or
Alan Turing is rather bright based on their achievements
alone.
Which brings me to my third point.
3. Testing intelligence
The problem of our hypothetical superhuman AGI, since we
can't come up with a simple test to determine it's intelligence,
is that it would have to prove itself as capable.
This can be done in three ways:
1. Use previous data and see if the "AI" is able to perform on

said data as well or better than humans.
2. Use very good simulations of the world and see if the "AI"
is able to achieve superhuman results competing inside
said simulations.
3. Give the "AI" the resource to manifest itself in the real
13 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
world and act in much the same way the human would
(with all the benefits of having a computer for a brain).
Approach number (1) is how we currently train ML

algorithms, and it has the limitation of only allowing us to
train on very limited tasks where we know all the possible
"paths" once the task is complete.
For example, we can train a cancer detecting "AI" on a set of

medical imaging data, because it's rather easy to then take all
of our subjects and test whether or not they "really" have
cancer using more expensive methods or waiting.
It's rather hard to train a cancer curing "AI", since that

problem contains "what ifs" that can't be explored. There are
limitless treatment options and given that a treatment fails (the
person dies of cancer)... we can't really go back and try again
to see what the "correct" solution was.
I wrote a bit more about this problem here, if you're interested

in understanding it a bit more. But, I assume that most readers
with some interest in statistics and/or machine learning have
stumbled upon this issue countless times already.
This can be solved by (2), which is creating simulations in

which we can test an infinite amount of hypothesis. The only
problem being that creating simulations is rather
computationally and theoretically expensive.
To go back to our previous example of cancer curing "AI",
14 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
currently the "bleeding edge" of biomolecular dynamics

simulation, is being able to simulate a single medium-sized
gene, in a non reactive substance, for a few nanoseconds, by
making certain intelligent assumptions that speed up our
simulation by making it a bit less realistic, on a supercomputer
worth a few dozens of millions of dollars... Yeah, the whole
simulation idea might not work out that well after all.
Coincidentally, most phenomenon that can be easily simulated

are also the kind of phenomenon that are either very simplistic
or fall into category (1), go figure.
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 ? Especially when the proposition here is
that we might have to try out millions of these AGIs before
one of them is actually extremely smart, much like we do with
current ML models.
The problem, of course, is that resources are finite and

controlled by people (not in the sense that they are stagnant,
but we can't create an infinite amount of resources on demand,
it takes time). Nothing of extrinsic value is free.
Which leads me to my fourth point about AGI being useless.
4. The problem of gradual tool

building
15 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
The process by which humanity advances is, once you boil it

down, one of building new tools using previous tools.
People in the bronze age weren't unable to smelt steel because

they didn't have the intelligence to "figure it out", but because
they didn't have the tools to reach the desired temperature,
evaluate the correct iron & carbon mixture, mine the actual
iron out of the ground and establish the trade networks
required to make the whole process viable.
As tools of bronze helped us build better tools of bronze, that

helped us discover more easy to mine iron deposits, build
ships and caravans to trade the materials needed to process
said iron and build better smelters, we were suddenly able to
smelt steel. Which leads us to being able to build better and
better tooling out of steel... etc, etc.
Human civilization doesn't advance by breeding smarter and

smarter humans, it advanced by building better and better
tools.
The gradual knowledge that we acquire is mostly due to our

tools. We don't own our knowledge of particle physics or
chemistry to a few intelligent blokes that "figured it out". We
owe it to the years of cumulative tool building that lead us to
being able to build the tools to perform the experiments that
gave us insights into the very world we inhabit.
Take away Max Planck and you might set quantum mechanics
back by a few years, but in a rather short time someone would
16 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
have probably figured out the same things he did. This is

rather obvious when you look at multiple discoveries
throughout history, that is to say, people discovering the same
thing, at about the same time, without being aware of each
other’s works.
Have Max Planck be born among a tribe of hunter gatherers in

the neolithic period, and he might become a particularly clever
hunter or shaman... but it's essentially impossible for him to
have the tooling which allowed him to make the same
discoveries about nature as 20th century Plank.
However, to some extent, the process of tool building is

inhibited by time and space. If we decided to build a more
efficient battery, or a more accurate electronic microscope, or
a more accurate radio telescope, we wouldn't be limited by our
intelligence, but by the thousands of hours required for our
factories to build the better tools required to build better
factories to build even better tools required to build even
better factories in order to build even more amazing tools...
etc.
Thousands of amazing discoveries, machines and theories lie

within our grasp and one of the biggest bottlenecks is not
intelligence but resources.
Not matter how smart your interstellar spaceship design is,

you will still need rare metals, radioactive materials, hard to
craft carbon fiber and the machinery to put it all together.
Which is rather difficult, since we've collectively decided
17 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
those resources are much better spent on portable

masturbation aids, funny looking things to stick on our bodies
and giant bombs just in case we need to murder all of
humanity.
So, would a hypothetical superintelligent AGI help this

process of tools building ? Most certainly. But it will probably
end up with the same bottlenecks people that want to create
amazing things face today, other people not wanting to give up
their toys and the physical reality requiring the passage of
time to shape.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily blaming people for

choosing to focus on 3rd printing complexly shaped water-
resistant phallus-like structures instead of using those
resources to research senolytic nanobots. As I've mentioned
before, defining intelligence is hard, and so is defining
progress. What might seem "awesome" for the AGI reading
this article could be rather boring or stupid for a few other
billions of AGIs.
In conclusion
• Artificial general intelligence is something we have plenty
of here on Earth, most of it goes to waste, so I'm not sure
designing AGI based on a human model would help us
much.
• Superhuman artificial general intelligence is not something
18 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
that we can define, since nobody has come up with a

comprehensive definition of intelligence that is self-
sufficient, rather than requiring real world trial and error.
• Superhuman artificial general intelligence is not something

we can test, since we can't gather statistically valid training
datasets for complex problem and we can't afford to test
via trial and error in the real world.
• Even if superhuman artificial intelligence was somehow

created, there's no way of knowing that they'd be of much
use to us. It may be that intelligence is not the biggest
bottleneck to our current problems, but rather time and
resources.
If you think you're specific business case might require an

AGI, feel free to hire one of the 3 billion people living in
South East Asia that will gladly help you with tasks for a few
dollars an hour. It's likely to be much cheaper, Amazon is
already doing it with Alexa, since it turns out to be somewhat
cheaper than doing it via machine learning.
Is that to say I am "against" the machine learning revolution ?
No, fuck no, I'd be an idiot and a hypocrite if I thought

machine learning wouldn't lead to tremendous human progress
in the following decades.
I specifically wanted to work in the area of generic machine

learning. I think it's the place to be in the next 10 or 20 years
19 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
in terms of exciting developments.
But we have to stop romanticizing or fear-mongering about

the pointless concept of a human-like intelligence being
produced by software. Instead, we should think of machine
learning (or "AI", if you must really call it that) as a tool in
our great arsenal of thinking tools.
Machine learning is awesome if you apply it to the set of

problems it's good at solving and if we try to extent that set of
problems by being better and collecting and building
algorithms we might be able to accomplish some amazing
feats. But the idea that an algorithm that can mimic a human
would be of particular use to us, is similarly silly to the idea
that a hammer which also serves as a teaspoon would
revolutionize the world of construction. Tools are designed to
be good at their job, not much else.
And who knows, maybe someday we'll combine some of these

awesome algorithms we've developed, add a few extra bits,
shield them inside a realistic-looking robot body and realize
that the "thing" we've create might well be a human... then it
can join us and the other billions of humans in being mostly
useless at doing anything of real value.
If you enjoyed this article you may also like:
• The Red Queen

• Confounding via experimenting
20 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
Published on: 2019-05-23
Previous | Series | About | Archives | Next
your@ema.il Subscribe
Sort by Recently updated ▾
Your comment here
Login: Google, GitHub, Facebook, Twitter, Email ▾ or Anonymous ▾ Styling with Markdown is supported
Powered by Remark42
Reactions:
21 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
14
19
22 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
15
29
38
23 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM
24 of 24 3/29/2024, 11:32 PM

Artificial General Intelligence Is Here, and It's Useless

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial General Intelligence Is Here, and It's Useless

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial general intelligence is here, and it's useless https://cerebralab.com/Artificial_general_intelligence_is_here,_and_it...

Add this blog to your rss feed

Pollute your mind with some of my other missguided

Contact me at: george@cerebralab.com

Publicly berate me on Twitter

Artificial general intelligence

This myth stems from two misunderstanding of reality.

One such misunderstanding is related to the refinement and

A second, more easy to debunk misunderstanding, is related to

1. We already have AGIs

They are capable of creating new modified version of

This is a rather obvious observation, but one that needs to be

So, if we are agreed on the fact that 70 billion people wouldn't

If we disagree on that assumption, than what's stopping the

This leads me to my second point.

An IQ test is the go-to measure of human intelligence used by

However, algorithms can readily out-score humans in IQ tests,

The problem here is that IQ tests are designed for humans...

But, let's assume we come up with a "machine intelligence

But how do we design it to avoid the pitfalls of a human IQ

In other words, this MIQ test needs to be very efficient at

If we come back to an IQ test, we'll notice it's rather

Have you ever heard of Marilyn vos Savant or Chris Langan

Whilst I won't question their presumed intelligence, their

There is most certainly an overlap between people that have

foundational experiments, invented theories that explain

But IQ is not a predictor of that, it's more of a filter. You can

So even if we somehow manage to create this MIQ to be as

We might be able to say "An intelligent algorithm should have

The problem is that we aren't intelligent enough to define

Most people will agree as to whether or not someone is

Which brings me to my third point.

This can be done in three ways:

1. Use previous data and see if the "AI" is able to perform on

Approach number (1) is how we currently train ML

For example, we can train a cancer detecting "AI" on a set of

It's rather hard to train a cancer curing "AI", since that

I wrote a bit more about this problem here, if you're interested

This can be solved by (2), which is creating simulations in

To go back to our previous example of cancer curing "AI",

currently the "bleeding edge" of biomolecular dynamics

Coincidentally, most phenomenon that can be easily simulated

So we are left with approach (3), giving our hypothetical AGI

The problem, of course, is that resources are finite and

Which leads me to my fourth point about AGI being useless.

4. The problem of gradual tool

The process by which humanity advances is, once you boil it

People in the bronze age weren't unable to smelt steel because

As tools of bronze helped us build better tools of bronze, that

Human civilization doesn't advance by breeding smarter and

The gradual knowledge that we acquire is mostly due to our

have probably figured out the same things he did. This is

Have Max Planck be born among a tribe of hunter gatherers in

However, to some extent, the process of tool building is

Thousands of amazing discoveries, machines and theories lie

Not matter how smart your interstellar spaceship design is,

those resources are much better spent on portable

So, would a hypothetical superintelligent AGI help this

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily blaming people for

• Superhuman artificial general intelligence is not something

that we can define, since nobody has come up with a

• Superhuman artificial general intelligence is not something

• Even if superhuman artificial intelligence was somehow