In his last paragraph, he makes the following controversial statement:
For yet another consequence of understanding that the target ability is qualitatively different is that, since humans have it and apes do not, the information for how to achieve it must be encoded in the relatively tiny number of differences between the DNA of humans and that of chimpanzees.
I remember Eliezer making the same point in a bloggingheads video with Robin Hanson. I believe Hanson’s position (although I watched this years ago, and I may be confabulating) was that our intelligence works via the same kludge as other animals and we got better results mostly by developing a better talent for social transmission.
That idea makes a lot of sense to me. I recall reading that chimpanzees have at various times invented more advanced tools (e.g. using spears to hunt bush babies )--but they seem to spread the methods by accident rather than deliberate teaching. New chimpanzee technologies don’t seem to persist as they do for humans.
ETA: I looked it up, and I couldn’t find a Hanson/Yudkowsky bloggingheads. I’m not sure if it was taken down or if the video was not done through bloggingheads.
He seems to suggest that “humans = chimps + X”, therefore what makes intelligence must be a subset of “X”, therefore rather small.
Which in my opinion is wrong. Imagine that to make intelligence, you need A and B and C and D. Chimps have A and B and C, but they don’t have D. Humans have A and B and C and D, which is why humans are more intelligent than chimps. However, having D alone, without A and B and C, would not be sufficient for intelligence.
The fact that the DNA distance between humans and chimps is small only proves that if we tried to make chimps smarter by genetical engineering, we wouldn’t have to change most of their genes. But that is irrelevant for making a machine. We don’t have fully chimp-level machines yet.
I looked it up, and I couldn’t find a Hanson/Yudkowsky bloggingheads. I’m not sure if it was taken down or if the video was not done through bloggingheads.
I remember Eliezer making the same point in a bloggingheads video with Robin Hanson. I believe Hanson’s position (although I watched this years ago, and I may be confabulating) was that our intelligence works via the same kludge as other animals and we got better results mostly by developing a better talent for social transmission.
That idea makes a lot of sense to me. I recall reading that chimpanzees have at various times invented more advanced tools (e.g. using spears to hunt bush babies )--but they seem to spread the methods by accident rather than deliberate teaching. New chimpanzee technologies don’t seem to persist as they do for humans.
ETA: I looked it up, and I couldn’t find a Hanson/Yudkowsky bloggingheads. I’m not sure if it was taken down or if the video was not done through bloggingheads.
He seems to suggest that “humans = chimps + X”, therefore what makes intelligence must be a subset of “X”, therefore rather small.
Which in my opinion is wrong. Imagine that to make intelligence, you need A and B and C and D. Chimps have A and B and C, but they don’t have D. Humans have A and B and C and D, which is why humans are more intelligent than chimps. However, having D alone, without A and B and C, would not be sufficient for intelligence.
The fact that the DNA distance between humans and chimps is small only proves that if we tried to make chimps smarter by genetical engineering, we wouldn’t have to change most of their genes. But that is irrelevant for making a machine. We don’t have fully chimp-level machines yet.
A Hanson/Yudkowsky bloggingheads?!? Methinks you are mistaken.
I looked it up, and I couldn’t find a Hanson/Yudkowsky bloggingheads. I’m not sure if it was taken down or if the video was not done through bloggingheads.
There never was a bloggingheads—AFAIK. There is: Yudkowsky vs Hanson on the Intelligence Explosion—Jane Street Debate. However, I’d be surprised if Yudkowsky makes the same silly mistake as Deutsch. Yudkowsky knows some things about machine intelligence.