David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Consciousness Studies 17 (9-10):9 - 10 (2010)
What happens when machines become more intelligent than humans? One view is that this event will be followed by an explosion to ever-greater levels of intelligence, as each generation of machines creates more intelligent machines in turn. This intelligence explosion is now often known as the “singularity”. The basic argument here was set out by the statistician I.J. Good in his 1965 article “Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine”: Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an “intelligence explosion”, and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. The key idea is that a machine that is more intelligent than humans will be better than humans at designing machines. So it will be capable of designing a machine more intelligent than the most intelligent machine that humans can design. So if it is itself designed by humans, it will be capable of designing a machine more intelligent than itself. By similar reasoning, this next machine will also be capable of designing a machine more intelligent than itself. If every machine in turn does what it is capable of, we should expect a sequence of ever more intelligent machines. This intelligence explosion is sometimes combined with another idea, which we might call the “speed explosion”. The argument for a speed explosion starts from the familiar observation that computer processing speed doubles at regular intervals. Suppose that speed doubles every two years and will do so indefinitely. Now suppose that we have human-level artificial intelligence 1 designing new processors. Then faster processing will lead to faster designers and an ever-faster design cycle, leading to a limit point soon afterwards. The argument for a speed explosion was set out by the artificial intelligence researcher Ray Solomonoff in his 1985 article “The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence”.1 Eliezer Yudkowsky gives a succinct version of the argument in his 1996 article “Staring at the Singularity”: “Computing speed doubles every two subjective years of work..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hubert L. Dreyfus (2012). A History of First Step Fallacies. Minds and Machines 22 (2):87-99.
Riccardo Manzotti & Robert Pepperell (2013). The New Mind: Thinking Beyond the Head. [REVIEW] AI and Society 28 (2):157-166.
Nick Bostrom (2012). The Superintelligent Will: Motivation and Instrumental Rationality in Advanced Artificial Agents. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 22 (2):71-85.
Stuart Armstrong, Anders Sandberg & Nick Bostrom (2012). Thinking Inside the Box: Controlling and Using an Oracle AI. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 22 (4):299-324.
Philippe Verdoux (2011). Emerging Technologies and the Future of Philosophy. Metaphilosophy 42 (5):682-707.
Similar books and articles
Rodrick Wallace, New Mathematical Foundations for AI and Alife: Are the Necessary Conditions for Animal Consciousness Sufficient for the Design of Intelligent Machines?
J. Storrs Hall (2006). Nano-Enabled AI. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):247-261.
Dale Jacquette (1993). Who's Afraid of the Turing Test? Behavior and Philosophy 20 (21):63-74.
E. Ronald & Moshe Sipper (2001). Intelligence is Not Enough: On the Socialization of Talking Machines. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 11 (4):567-576.
Marcus Hutter (2012). Can Intelligence Explode? Journal of Consciousness Studies 19 (1-2):143-166.
Tyler Cowen & Michelle Dawson, What Does the Turing Test Really Mean? And How Many Human Beings (Including Turing) Could Pass?
Shane Legg & Marcus Hutter (2007). Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 17 (4):391-444.
Peter Kugel (2002). Computing Machines Can't Be Intelligent (...And Turing Said So). Minds and Machines 12 (4):563-579.
Added to index2010-04-08
Total downloads327 ( #888 of 1,102,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #5,496 of 1,102,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?