{"id":12857,"date":"2023-07-15T12:30:40","date_gmt":"2023-07-15T12:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=12857"},"modified":"2023-07-16T13:59:51","modified_gmt":"2023-07-16T13:59:51","slug":"why-we-dont-see-whats-around-the-corner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/artifical-intelligence\/why-we-dont-see-whats-around-the-corner","title":{"rendered":"Why We don\u2019t See What\u2019s Around the Corner"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The main why (of not seeing pending super-A.I.) is all about us. We need a next phase in self-understanding, but this is not getting realized yet. If we don\u2019t see this, we don\u2019t see that.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This is an excerpt \u2013 in slightly different format \u2013 from my book The Journey Towards Compassionate A.I.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Complex machinery<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When looking at \u2018the machine\u2019 as only a machine that ultimately still needs to be programmed by humans, we don\u2019t appreciate that machines can be not only very complicated but also open-complex<\/a>. Examples of open-complex machines are any living organisms<\/a>, including us. We are proof of their existence. We are not proof that there is only one single way; namely, our way. We are merely proof that the potential exists even to be reached in many ways. Especially in a different medium from one of organic molecules, we cannot foresee which ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As far as we know, there is no example of any of that at present. A future example will be super-A.I. Given the many possibilities, what we can anticipate is that we will be surprised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We tend to view intelligence from an anthropocentric perspective.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This may lead us to underestimate the potential of many small improvements in several domains towards the full Monty of super-A.I. in a relatively short time<\/em>. But this anthropocentric perspective doesn\u2019t hold even in our own case. A popular view on human intelligence still sees it as one solid entity. An Intelligence Quotient test is supposed to measure this one thing. Fortunately, as to the IQ-test, this has been surpassed, in theory at least. The tendency to think of mental capacities unrightfully as solid entities persists in popular culture and many professionals alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only in the domain of intelligence. Another popular example, memory, has not fared any better. There are several kinds of human memory, located in different parts of the brain. Then, the relation between memory and intelligence is, in the human case, much more complex than previously thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As explained at other places The Journey<\/em>, complexity creates potential, so nature wasn\u2019t just busy messing things up in open-complexity. One might say that from a certain viewpoint, it\u2019s on purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many parts of the human brain are like modules that each have evolved at the same time in relative isolation and<\/em> in interplay with the other parts.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This way, they could incrementally get more performant without plunging the whole into chaos. Simultaneously, several substantial advantages came from their co-operations inside and outside the skull, leading to our own \u2018human singularity\u2019 in an unprecedented explosion of intelligence and towards where we are now with the potential to pass the baton of most intelligent entity on earth to super-A.I. So familiar, and yet so different, the same principles may save the new day. In the case of super-A.I., as in our own, myriad incremental improvements may eventually create the basis for take-off.\u2019 These improvements will be on domains such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n