Why I do not believe AI smarter than Humans will make more progress than Humans

[Cyberman]

Thing is though that the size of the Universe ÷ relatively minor = an unimaginable shitload of life-bearing worlds.

[Alex K]

Chuck, but I would have thought the amount of planets will the correct conditions for abiogenesis, let alone a successful diverse evolution, let alone that intelligence is a given, would be relatively minor. Then we assume that no extinction events in all these millions of years of evolution. I don't know.

According to calculations following from known exoplanet statistics, there are like 1000000000000000000000 habitable zone planets in the observable universe, iirc...

[bennyboy]

You know what I think?
An alien civilization containing Intelligent Life, far beyond our evolutionary progress, might not have invented a way to go to space.

You know why?
Because Ideas are not inevitable.

Give an AI something to do, they will do it as sufficiently as possible. Tell it to think for its own, and you cannot make the argument it would have thought and made the same progress we had.
The reason every person is unique, is because no one else will ever think the same way, see things the same way as them. AI's will not acheive what we would have in the future, without human help. You can debate Free Will all you want, but I know for sure freedom of thought exists. Maybe all my actions are planned, and we live in a multiverse, I dunno. I do know, that my thoughts are not planned. As long as that is true, inventions become abstract, and you can no longer say the ideas needed in order to make those inventions are inevitable. This is why, in my opinion, even if other intelligent life exists, and it succeeds our intelligence, you cannot say we are not the first to have invented or acheived something, and more importantly you cannot say that AI which is smarter than us will make more progress than us, the human factor is irrelevant, because even if we assume they are the same as us in all aspects but much much smarter, the simple fact remains, nothing will think the exact same as anyone in any given moment, for as long as the mind remains non-material.

It's not that AI, and other advanced Intelligent Life in the universe couldn't make more progress than us, it's that there is no definitive answer to that question, no matter what the intelligence gap is.

I think you should define intelligence before going this far into things.  I would almost exactly define intelligence as the ability to make progress through the agency of thinking.

[tjakey]

You know what I think?
An alien civilization containing Intelligent Life, far beyond our evolutionary progress, might not have invented a way to go to space.

You know why?
Because Ideas are not inevitable.

Give an AI something to do, they will do it as sufficiently as possible. Tell it to think for its own, and you cannot make the argument it would have thought and made the same progress we had.
The reason every person is unique, is because no one else will ever think the same way, see things the same way as them. AI's will not acheive what we would have in the future, without human help. You can debate Free Will all you want, but I know for sure freedom of thought exists. Maybe all my actions are planned, and we live in a multiverse, I dunno. I do know, that my thoughts are not planned. As long as that is true, inventions become abstract, and you can no longer say the ideas needed in order to make those inventions are inevitable. This is why, in my opinion, even if other intelligent life exists, and it succeeds our intelligence, you cannot say we are not the first to have invented or acheived something, and more importantly you cannot say that AI which is smarter than us will make more progress than us, the human factor is irrelevant, because even if we assume they are the same as us in all aspects but much much smarter, the simple fact remains, nothing will think the exact same as anyone in any given moment, for as long as the mind remains non-material.

It's not that AI, and other advanced Intelligent Life in the universe couldn't make more progress than us, it's that there is no definitive answer to that question, no matter what the intelligence gap is.

I think you should define intelligence before going this far into things.  I would almost exactly define intelligence as the ability to make progress through the agency of thinking.

Okay, but how do you define "progress"?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Give an AI something to do, they will do it as sufficiently as possible. Tell it to think for its own, and you cannot make the argument it would have thought and made the same progress we had.

AI's will not acheive what we would have in the future, without human help.

We can't say anything for sure about the future of Artificial Intelligence yet because we haven't yet created anything in anyway advanced.

The whole field is still up for grabs. But theoretically there is no reason why we can't just simulate an entire human brain if we had the processing power and the ability to measure to a fine enough detail. In which case what humans could do an AI could do as well.

But one thing is for sure, animals and humans have evolved the way they have for a reason. And we know that those same reasons still apply to Artificially Intelligent robots. We both have a single situated body with different needs. For example, to eat, drink, stay safe etc. A robot also needs to arbitrate between competing needs, to maintain its energy supply, stay safe and perform its function. In all likelihood, an AI will act very much like another animal because it will have the same needs. There is good reason to think that any highly advanced intelligence, whether artificial or natural will have consciousness and emotions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Depends on whether the electric sheep vibrate ...

[ignoramus]

Thing is though that the size of the Universe ÷ relatively minor = an unimaginable shitload of life-bearing worlds.

I would say potentiall life-bearing world.
Maybe we can never reach close to light speed, therefore for all intents and purposes, we are alone, as are most others. If travelling close to light speed is an impossibility under the laws of this universe, I can't imagine too many first contacts.

[Anomalocaris]

Thing is though that the size of the Universe ÷ relatively minor = an unimaginable shitload of life-bearing worlds.

I would say potentiall life-bearing world.
Maybe we can never reach close to light speed, therefore for all intents and purposes, we are alone, as are most others. If travelling close to light speed is an impossibility under the laws of this universe, I can't imagine too many first contacts.

Why? Do you imagine all intelligent life must be as short lived as we homo flash in a pan sapien? Do you think intelligent life must think only of 5 generations, two ahead, two behind with massive emphasis on the one in the middle?

[Anomalocaris]

Chuck, but I would have thought the amount of planets will the correct conditions for abiogenesis, let alone a successful diverse evolution, let alone that intelligence is a given, would be relatively minor. Then we assume that no extinction events in all these millions of years of evolution. I don't know.

If 1 in a million planets undergo abiogenesis, and 1 in a million planets that underwent abiogenesis evolve intelligent life, and 1 in a million intelligent species eventually develop space travel,   we still expect ten million space faring civilizations to have evolved in the observable universe.