Talk:Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Futures studies Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Science / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science
	Contemporary philosophy

Transhumanism Mid‑importance

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:

See changes to:

To Do List:

edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt an article.
Help out with the To-do lists

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles)
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles

Maintenance / Etc

Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
And always write for an encyclopedia.

Create

Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

a transhumanism stub

Your immediate attention

false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes.

Untitled

How are WaitButWhy and Tim Urban more mention-worthy here than other random bloggers on the internet? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input from AI/physics/neuroscience experts needed

This article needs input from AI/ML, physics and neuroscience experts. The recent great success of the "new AI" are in machine learning (ML) and most experts feel the key to intelligence is learning (either biological or artificial) - see for example http://mcgovern.mit.edu/principal-investigators/tomaso-poggio However, most ML experts are, naturally, gung-ho about the field, and have no incentive to consider the potential limits. These limits generally reflect 2 issues. First, the adverse effects of high dimensionality n, with computational needs for universal intelligence growing exponentially with n. Brains have ~ 1 quadrillion synapses which are updated in parallel every millisecond; currently planned computers have ~ 10 billion transistors serially updated every nanosecond), giving an overall shortfall of order a quintillion. Second, Moore's law is now slowing as it hits physics limits, so it seems unlikely that quintillion-fold increases in density are possible. One could argue that in principle brains are proof that an approximation to UI is possible, perhaps at a time scale much faster than the learning that has occurred since humans evolved. Until we throughly understand the neural basis of human intelligence - in particular the detailed operation of the neocortex, that hope is like believing in God: no real evidence.Paulhummerman (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article on a book by Nick Bostrom, the philosopher. Other expert opinions should be included only, if they reacted specifically to the book. Otherwise, refer to the more gneral wikipedia-pages on this topics, such as Superintelligence Andre908436 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the dominant lifeform on Earth"

Does Bostrom really consider superintelligence to be, in reality or potentiality, a lifeform? This seems counterintuitive and, if not a misrepresentation, could do with explaining. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the fundamental problem with all these AI speculators. How can you convince a machine that it is 'alive', and how can you convince it that it should want to be alive? Over and over the AI 'experts' say we should be worried about an AI that wants 'self-preservation' because any 'intelligent' being would want that. Well, no! Any LIVING being should want that. Why should a computer care if we turn it off? Are we going to program a belief in computer-heaven into it? AI theorizing is SO ridiculous. It's almost as if the people doing it are using their own less-than-real intelligence, like they live so far removed from 'natural life' with so many artifices in their lives, that they are no longer capable of pondering the fundamental realities of life. They're the artificially intelligent trying to imagine programming real live intelligence into a machine, anthropomorphizing to the degree of cliche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]