Against hard barriers of this kind, you can point to arguments like “positing hard barriers of this kind requires saying that there are some very small differences … that make the crucial difference between [two things]. … And can epsilon really make that much of a difference?”
Sorites fallacy/argument by the beard/heap paradox/continuum fallacy/fallacy of grey/etc.
The real answer to Sorites paradox for intelligence is that memory is an issue, and if a subject requires you to learn more information than can be stored in memory, you can’t learn it no matter how much time you invest into the subject, and differing intelligences also usually differ in memory capacity.
However, assuming memory isn’t an issue, than the answer to the question is that intelligence really is a continuum, and the better metric is rate of learning per time step say, since any difference in intelligence is solely a difference in time, so no hard barriers exists.
I think that memory will not be the bottleneck in an intelligence explosion for understanding AI, and instead time will be the bottleneck.
Sorites fallacy/argument by the beard/heap paradox/continuum fallacy/fallacy of grey/etc.
The real answer to Sorites paradox for intelligence is that memory is an issue, and if a subject requires you to learn more information than can be stored in memory, you can’t learn it no matter how much time you invest into the subject, and differing intelligences also usually differ in memory capacity.
However, assuming memory isn’t an issue, than the answer to the question is that intelligence really is a continuum, and the better metric is rate of learning per time step say, since any difference in intelligence is solely a difference in time, so no hard barriers exists.
I think that memory will not be the bottleneck in an intelligence explosion for understanding AI, and instead time will be the bottleneck.