I intended to answer this question with my second prediction—I am 60% confident that super-human intelligence is not possible.
I really do think that the reproductive advantage of increased intelligence is great enough that the line of how intelligent it is possible for agents to be is within a reasonably small number of standard deviations of the mean of current human intelligence. My inability to make seat-of-the-pants estimates of statistical effects may make me look foolish, but maybe-maybe 8-12 standard deviations??
Is there a simple summary of why you think this is true of intelligence when it turned out not to be true of, say, durability, or flightspeed, or firepower, or the ability to efficiently convert ambient energy into usable form, or any of a thousand other evolved capabilities for which we’ve managed to far exceed our physiological limits with technological aids?
Just a nitpick but if I recall correctly, cellular respiration (aerobic metabolism) is much more efficient than any of our modern ways to produce energy.
I don’t think I understand your question. There appear to be upper limits to how easy it is to solve certain kinds of problems that an intelligent agent would want to be able to solve. It is uncertain whether we have discovered the most clever methods of solving these problems—for example, we aren’t certain whether P = NP. Apparently, many mathematicians think humanity has been basically as clever as is possible (i.e. P != NP).
If we think there are limits, faul_sname asks the obvious next question—is human-level intelligence anywhere near those limits? I don’t see why not—intelligence has consistently shown reproductive fitness—so I expect evolution would select for it. It could be that humanity is in a local optimum and the next level of intelligence cannot be reached because the intermediate steps are not viable. But I’m not aware of evidence that the shape of intelligence improvement was like that for our ancestors.
intelligence has consistently shown reproductive fitness—so I expect evolution would select for it.
Yes, but the speed at which it would do so is quite limited. Particularly with a generational time of 15-25 years, and with the fact that evolution basically stopped working as an enhancer once humans passed the threshold of preventing most premature deaths (where premature just means before the end of the reproductive window).
What makes you think that the threshold for civilization is anywhere near the upper bound for possible intelligence?
Particularly with a generational time of 15-25 years, and with the fact that evolution basically stopped working as an enhancer once humans passed the threshold of preventing most premature deaths (where premature just means before the end of the reproductive window).
This is way off for almost all of human history almost everywhere. See the work of Greg Clark: occupational success and wealth in pre-industrial Britain were strongly correlated with the number of surviving children, as measured by public records of birth, death, and estates. Here’s an essay by Ron Unz discussing similar patterns in China. Or look at page 12 of Greg Cochran and company’s paper on the evolutionary history of Ashkenazi intelligence. Over the last 10,000 years evolutionary selective sweeps have actually greatly accelerated in the course of adapting to agricultural and civilized life.
How did intelligence, or earnings affected by intelligence, get converted into more surviving children?
Average wages until the last couple centuries were only a little above subsistence, meaning that the average household income was just slightly more than enough to raise a new generation to replace the previous one
Workers with below-average earnings could only feed themselves, not a pregnant wife or children
Men with higher earnings were thus more likely to marry, and to be able to afford to do so earlier, as well as paying for mistresses and prostitutes
Workers with high earnings could give offspring more nutritious diets, providing increased resistance to death by infectious disease (very common, and worsened by nutrient deficiency or inadequate calories)
High earnings could be used to build fat reserves to withstand famine, and to produce or purchase enough food to sustain a family through those lean times
You make an excellent point. The evolutionary argument is not as strong as I presented it.
Given that recorded history has no record of successful Xanatos gambits (TVTropes lingo), the case is strong that the intelligence limit is not medium distance from human average (i.e. not 20-50 std. dev. from average).
That leaves the possibility that (A) the limit is far (>50 std dev.) or (B) very near (the 8-12 range I mentioned above).
It seems to me that our ability to understand and prove certain results about computational difficulty (and the power of self-reference) that would apply even if super-human intelligence was possible is evidence that (B) is more likely than (A).
I intended to answer this question with my second prediction—I am 60% confident that super-human intelligence is not possible.
I really do think that the reproductive advantage of increased intelligence is great enough that the line of how intelligent it is possible for agents to be is within a reasonably small number of standard deviations of the mean of current human intelligence. My inability to make seat-of-the-pants estimates of statistical effects may make me look foolish, but maybe-maybe 8-12 standard deviations??
Is there a simple summary of why you think this is true of intelligence when it turned out not to be true of, say, durability, or flightspeed, or firepower, or the ability to efficiently convert ambient energy into usable form, or any of a thousand other evolved capabilities for which we’ve managed to far exceed our physiological limits with technological aids?
Just a nitpick but if I recall correctly, cellular respiration (aerobic metabolism) is much more efficient than any of our modern ways to produce energy.
Fair enough. Thanks.
I don’t think I understand your question. There appear to be upper limits to how easy it is to solve certain kinds of problems that an intelligent agent would want to be able to solve. It is uncertain whether we have discovered the most clever methods of solving these problems—for example, we aren’t certain whether P = NP. Apparently, many mathematicians think humanity has been basically as clever as is possible (i.e. P != NP).
If we think there are limits, faul_sname asks the obvious next question—is human-level intelligence anywhere near those limits? I don’t see why not—intelligence has consistently shown reproductive fitness—so I expect evolution would select for it. It could be that humanity is in a local optimum and the next level of intelligence cannot be reached because the intermediate steps are not viable. But I’m not aware of evidence that the shape of intelligence improvement was like that for our ancestors.
Yes, but the speed at which it would do so is quite limited. Particularly with a generational time of 15-25 years, and with the fact that evolution basically stopped working as an enhancer once humans passed the threshold of preventing most premature deaths (where premature just means before the end of the reproductive window).
What makes you think that the threshold for civilization is anywhere near the upper bound for possible intelligence?
This is way off for almost all of human history almost everywhere. See the work of Greg Clark: occupational success and wealth in pre-industrial Britain were strongly correlated with the number of surviving children, as measured by public records of birth, death, and estates. Here’s an essay by Ron Unz discussing similar patterns in China. Or look at page 12 of Greg Cochran and company’s paper on the evolutionary history of Ashkenazi intelligence. Over the last 10,000 years evolutionary selective sweeps have actually greatly accelerated in the course of adapting to agricultural and civilized life.
How did intelligence, or earnings affected by intelligence, get converted into more surviving children?
Average wages until the last couple centuries were only a little above subsistence, meaning that the average household income was just slightly more than enough to raise a new generation to replace the previous one
Workers with below-average earnings could only feed themselves, not a pregnant wife or children
Men with higher earnings were thus more likely to marry, and to be able to afford to do so earlier, as well as paying for mistresses and prostitutes
Workers with high earnings could give offspring more nutritious diets, providing increased resistance to death by infectious disease (very common, and worsened by nutrient deficiency or inadequate calories)
High earnings could be used to build fat reserves to withstand famine, and to produce or purchase enough food to sustain a family through those lean times
Intelligence is helpful in avoiding lethal accidents
Likewise for execution for criminal activities, falling prey to crime, and avoiding death in war
I stand corrected.
You make an excellent point. The evolutionary argument is not as strong as I presented it.
Given that recorded history has no record of successful Xanatos gambits (TVTropes lingo), the case is strong that the intelligence limit is not medium distance from human average (i.e. not 20-50 std. dev. from average).
That leaves the possibility that (A) the limit is far (>50 std dev.) or (B) very near (the 8-12 range I mentioned above).
It seems to me that our ability to understand and prove certain results about computational difficulty (and the power of self-reference) that would apply even if super-human intelligence was possible is evidence that (B) is more likely than (A).
A larger head makes death during childbirth easier, so I’d expect evolution to be optimizing processing power per unit volume even today.
Unfortunately, neurons are about as efficient in most species—they’re already as optimized as you get. For that and other interesting facts, see http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/19/1201895109.abstract