Any continuous differentiable function looks about linear once you zoom in far enough. I think that the intuition here is that the range of human intelligence that we are good at measuring subjectively is so narrow (compared to range of possible AI intelligence) that marginal returns would be roughly linear within / around that range. Yes, it will stop being linear further out, but it will be sufficiently far out to not matter at that point.
I do not share those intuitions/expectations at all.
And I think the human brain is a universal learner. I believe that we are closer to the peak of bounded physical intelligence than we are to an ant.
And I also think evolution already faced significantly diminishing marginal returns on human cognitive enhancement (the increased disease burden of Ashkenazi Jews for example).
I think that using human biology as a guide is misleading. As far as I am aware, for every measurable task where AI surpassed humans, it blew past the human level of capability without slowing down. As far as I am aware, there is a lot of evidence (however indirect) that human-level intelligence is nothing special (as in—more of an arbitrary point on the spectrum) from the AI, or any other non-human-biology-focused perspective, and no evidence to the contrary. Is there?
Any continuous differentiable function looks about linear once you zoom in far enough. I think that the intuition here is that the range of human intelligence that we are good at measuring subjectively is so narrow (compared to range of possible AI intelligence) that marginal returns would be roughly linear within / around that range. Yes, it will stop being linear further out, but it will be sufficiently far out to not matter at that point.
I do not share those intuitions/expectations at all.
And I think the human brain is a universal learner. I believe that we are closer to the peak of bounded physical intelligence than we are to an ant.
And I also think evolution already faced significantly diminishing marginal returns on human cognitive enhancement (the increased disease burden of Ashkenazi Jews for example).
I think that using human biology as a guide is misleading. As far as I am aware, for every measurable task where AI surpassed humans, it blew past the human level of capability without slowing down. As far as I am aware, there is a lot of evidence (however indirect) that human-level intelligence is nothing special (as in—more of an arbitrary point on the spectrum) from the AI, or any other non-human-biology-focused perspective, and no evidence to the contrary. Is there?