ASSUMPTION 1: There’s a “secret sauce” of human intelligence, and it looks like a learning algorithm (and associated inference algorithm).
ASSUMPTION 2: It’s a fundamentally different learning algorithm from deep neural networks. I don’t just mean a different neural network architecture, regularizer, etc. I mean really different, like “involving probabilistic program inference algorithms” or whatever.
ASSUMPTION 3: The algorithm is human-legible, but nobody knows how it works yet.
ASSUMPTION 4: We’ll eventually figure out this “secret sauce” and get Transformative AI (TAI).
These seem easily like the load-bearing part of the argument; I agree the stuff you listed follows from these assumptions but why should these assumptions be true?
I can imagine justifying assumption 2, and maybe also assumption 1, using biology knowledge that I don’t have. I don’t see how you justify assumptions 3 and 4. Note that assumption 4 also needs to include a claim that we figure out the “secret sauce” sooner than other paths to AGI, despite lots of effort being put into them already.
Note that assumption 4 also needs to include a claim that we figure out the “secret sauce” sooner than other paths to AGI, despite lots of effort being put into them already.
Yup, “time until AGI via one particular path” is always an upper bound to “time until AGI”. I added a note, thanks.
These seem easily like the load-bearing part of the argument; I agree the stuff you listed follows from these assumptions but why should these assumptions be true?
The only thing I’m arguing in this particular post is “IF assumptions THEN conclusion”. This post is not making any argument whatsoever that you should put a high credence on the assumptions being true. :-)
These seem easily like the load-bearing part of the argument; I agree the stuff you listed follows from these assumptions but why should these assumptions be true?
I can imagine justifying assumption 2, and maybe also assumption 1, using biology knowledge that I don’t have. I don’t see how you justify assumptions 3 and 4. Note that assumption 4 also needs to include a claim that we figure out the “secret sauce” sooner than other paths to AGI, despite lots of effort being put into them already.
Yup, “time until AGI via one particular path” is always an upper bound to “time until AGI”. I added a note, thanks.
The only thing I’m arguing in this particular post is “IF assumptions THEN conclusion”. This post is not making any argument whatsoever that you should put a high credence on the assumptions being true. :-)