X-factor does seem better than IQ, of course with the proviso that anybody who starts trying to do actual math with either one, or indeed to use it for anything other than this kind of basically qualitative talk, is in serious epistemic trouble.
I would suggest that humans run more like −2 to 1 than like −3 to 3. I guess there could be a very, very few 2s.
I get the impression that, except when he’s being especially careful for some specific reason, EY tends to speak as though the X-factor of an AI could and would quickly run up high enough that you couldn’t measure it. More like 20 or 30 than 5 or 6; basically deity-level. Maybe it’s a habit from the 1995 era, or maybe he has some reason to believe that that I don’t understand.
Personally, I have the general impression that you’d be hard pressed to get to 3 with an early ML-based AI, and I think that the “equal capabilities” handicap could realistically be made significant. Maybe 3?
X-factor does seem better than IQ, of course with the proviso that anybody who starts trying to do actual math with either one, or indeed to use it for anything other than this kind of basically qualitative talk, is in serious epistemic trouble.
I would suggest that humans run more like −2 to 1 than like −3 to 3. I guess there could be a very, very few 2s.
I get the impression that, except when he’s being especially careful for some specific reason, EY tends to speak as though the X-factor of an AI could and would quickly run up high enough that you couldn’t measure it. More like 20 or 30 than 5 or 6; basically deity-level. Maybe it’s a habit from the 1995 era, or maybe he has some reason to believe that that I don’t understand.
Personally, I have the general impression that you’d be hard pressed to get to 3 with an early ML-based AI, and I think that the “equal capabilities” handicap could realistically be made significant. Maybe 3?