Difference between revisions of "Missing gear for intelligence"

From Issawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
In IEM [[Eliezer]] writes "If the nearest competitor was previously only seven days behind, these seven days have now been amplified into a technological gulf enabling the leading AI to shut down, sandbox, or restrict the growth of any competitors it wishes to fetter."<ref>https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf#page=71</ref> The idea that a seven-day lead can result in a local foom makes me think Eliezer does not require the final missing gear to be a huge conceptual breakthrough.
 
In IEM [[Eliezer]] writes "If the nearest competitor was previously only seven days behind, these seven days have now been amplified into a technological gulf enabling the leading AI to shut down, sandbox, or restrict the growth of any competitors it wishes to fetter."<ref>https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf#page=71</ref> The idea that a seven-day lead can result in a local foom makes me think Eliezer does not require the final missing gear to be a huge conceptual breakthrough.
 +
 +
Another way of talking about missing gear is to talk about a discontinuity in the usefulness of the AI (i.e. "payoff thresholds"). e.g. at IQ 30 the AI is completely useless for AI research, but then at IQ 35 it's suddenly actually helpful (because it can finally automate some particular part of doing AI research). Then the first project that gets to that point can suddenly grow past everyone else. I'm not sure that missing gear and payoff thresholds are actually logically equivalent (check this).
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 00:14, 7 June 2020

Missing gear for intelligence (also called one wrong number problem, step function, understanding is discontinuous, payoff thresholds argument) is an argument for a discontinuity in AI takeoff. Unlike a secret sauce for intelligence, the missing gear argument does not require that the final part of AI development be a huge conceptual breakthrough.

In IEM Eliezer writes "If the nearest competitor was previously only seven days behind, these seven days have now been amplified into a technological gulf enabling the leading AI to shut down, sandbox, or restrict the growth of any competitors it wishes to fetter."[1] The idea that a seven-day lead can result in a local foom makes me think Eliezer does not require the final missing gear to be a huge conceptual breakthrough.

Another way of talking about missing gear is to talk about a discontinuity in the usefulness of the AI (i.e. "payoff thresholds"). e.g. at IQ 30 the AI is completely useless for AI research, but then at IQ 35 it's suddenly actually helpful (because it can finally automate some particular part of doing AI research). Then the first project that gets to that point can suddenly grow past everyone else. I'm not sure that missing gear and payoff thresholds are actually logically equivalent (check this).

External links

See also

  • https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf#page=71