Superintelligence - EN:DE

[encode_decode]

I dont know why, perhaps because I am not super intelligent but:

I have always imagined that a superintelligence would not encounter the problems that we the human race encounter and have encountered.

a superintelligence would be something that is able to show good sense quickly along with the capacity for inventive thought

The movie Soylent Green comes to mind. Efficient and utilitarian use of a commodity?

I have never seen the movie so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Are you saying that an efficient and utilitarian use of a commodity is a super intelligent thing to do based on the definition I gave or that a superintelligence would exhibit this type of thought - I am leaning toward the former as a guess to what you meant - and perhaps both.

A point that stood out in the Wikipedia article was contained within the plot to the movie and is as follows: The 20th century's industrialization led to overcrowding, pollution and global warming due to the greenhouse effect. It now has me wondering whether industrialization or overcrowding shows that we are intelligent at all - even though I intend some sarcasm, surely a superintelligence would be able to avoid such problems with forethought.

[Meno_]

Yes , negation or the concept that negates two contrary propositions is reductive to Plato.Therefore it is a myth. As much of a myth as Hegel's dialectic.
It dissent completely nihikate to nothingness or, does it reach a. absolute.

So, you reject negation? What's that make you exactly? What's your embraced position?

Negation is like a scale, put an equal weight to counterbalance one on the other scale. But scales are deceptive and inaccurate and they do not eliminate each other, they merely tip the scale, and how long that lasts is only a measure of expediency. They remain and are constantly revalued.

[encode_decode]

I recently read something similar to the following and is related somewhat to the Reality vs Perception thread:

I envision that a superintelligence would know what the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe are in any given moment and be able to calculate their past and future arrangements too. Such an intelligence would find past and future alike "present to its eyes".

I am not sure whether it is entirely necessary to go this far to define a superintelligence however.

[James S Saint]

I recently read something similar to the following and is related somewhat to the Reality vs Perception thread:

I envision that a superintelligence would know what the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe are in any given moment and be able to calculate their past and future arrangements too. Such an intelligence would find past and future alike "present to its eyes".

I am not sure whether it is entirely necessary to go this far to define a superintelligence however.

Such an intelligence would have serious issues. Not only would it require literally infinite memory capacity, but also more than infinite processing speed in order to keep up. And then to make it even worse, when such an intelligence realizes its own actions as a part of what is happening and will happen, the earlier concern for infinite processing ability suddenly seems infinitesimal in comparison. And even further, the issue of The Three Body Problem makes calculating many situations literally impossible, whether future or past.

The universe isn't digitized nor quantized .. for a reason.

[encode_decode]

A superintelligence has to be more than the intelligence of even the most intelligent man in existence. Not only must it remember more but it must be able to process more and even think in a extra dimension or more - changing the general paradigm of mind that we currently adhere to.

I recently read something similar to the following and is related somewhat to the Reality vs Perception thread:

I envision that a superintelligence would know what the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe are in any given moment and be able to calculate their past and future arrangements too. Such an intelligence would find past and future alike "present to its eyes".

I am not sure whether it is entirely necessary to go this far to define a superintelligence however.

It is not necessary for me to take superintelligence as to be godlike - superintelligence just needs to be defined as something more intelligent than the human being to begin with because that is the benchmark we mainly use in philosophy - along with reality, existence, perception et cetera.

Such an intelligence would have serious issues. Not only would it require literally infinite memory capacity, but also more than infinite processing speed in order to keep up. And then to make it even worse, when such an intelligence realizes its own actions as a part of what is happening and will happen, the earlier concern for infinite processing ability suddenly seems infinitesimal in comparison. And even further, the issue of The Three Body Problem makes calculating many situations literally impossible, whether future or past.

The universe isn't digitized nor quantized .. for a reason.

Yes I agree such an intelligence would have serious issues and for the reasons that you mention and much much more.

How then do we define a superintelligence? Can we say that a superintelligence is just our collective intelligence? or must there be a means to also process what we already know as in AI for example? Either way, a superintelligence is more than the intelligence of one human being because that is what we take as the benchmark for a regular intelligence. It may be true to say that not even the most intelligent person is a super intelligence.

[encode_decode]

What if the Superintelligence just turns out to be an intelligence combined of humans and technology?

Like the internet?

[Meno_]

What if the Superintelligence just turns out to be an intelligence combined of humans and technology?
Y
Like the internet?

I tend to agree with that, with the added dimension You touched upon, that such a capacity need no hard driven memory, since much of what has been learned
by then would have been scripted to an extent of divisiveness (redundancy) ,as to make all relevant factual basis unrecognizable on its face.

Only recurrent patterns need to have recognition, because the power of computing by then will self destruct as the absolute identifiable element of Saint James formula(?: for/of which Cantor supposedly had lost his mind: via: 1=.9999999999999 )will have reached m an incrementally unsustainable level of uncertainty; where superintelligence MAY self destruct-.

Implying this scenario not be a necessary conclusion, may beg the most acute intelligence even now.

However, infinite divisibility goes hand in hand with the similarity to Jame's idea of an infinite universe. But we'll have to wait and see what really goes down as the approach is made to such limit. This analogy fits somewhat the
modified/revised thought regarding the approach to the singularity, supposedly coming up in about a generation


encode, the last few lines are merely hypotheticals , albeit based on fairly convincing predictive sets of abstractions.

[encode_decode]

Meno_

Your post gave me many thoughts and many times I side tracked in my thinking into different possible outcomes. When wondering what stage we have reached in our internet development, I am met with the thought that so far we have reached a messy stage where there is no unity of information but only a multiplicative mess.

I also think that the Superintelligence is already unseen and collectively we are developing it - in terms of our technology and perhaps we have always been developing it even before we began to write or make cave drawings. We have been hunting down this superintelligence.

If we were to view things from the philosophy of information viewpoint it is possible that we have developed many Superintelligences.

I tend to agree with that, with the added dimension You touched upon, that is, that such a capacity need no hard driven worn memory, since much of what has been learned by then would be scripted to an extent of divisiveness (redundancy) , to make all relevant factual basis unrecognizable on its face.

I am starting to wonder if there is more than one added dimension, as such one per Superintelligence - of course we would typically culminate this into one ultimate Superintelligence and maybe this is how such redundancy comes to be. We should be able to make a small portion of relevant factual basis recognizable on its face through levels of abstraction(LoA). This is what I think that AI will become good at.

Implying this scenario not be a necessary conclusion may beg the most acute intelligence even now.

However, infinite devisibility goes hand in hand with the similar Jame's idea of an infinite universe. But we'll have to wait and see. What really goes down as approach is made to it. This analogy fits somewhat the modified/revised thought regarding the approach to the black hole horizon.

encode, the last few lines are merely hypotheticals , albeit based on fairly convincing abstractions.

I think that we(humans and technology) are capable of infinite abstractions - at least for the moment.