whestler's Shortform

post by whestler · 2024-09-23T11:45:35.419Z · LW · GW · 7 comments

Contents

7 comments

7 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by whestler · 2024-09-23T11:45:35.680Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I feel that human intelligence is not the gold standard of general intelligence; rather, I've begun thinking of it as the *minimum viable general intelligence*.
In evolutionary timescales, virtually no time has elapsed since hominids began trading, utilizing complex symbolic thinking, making art, hunting large animals etc, and here we are, a blip later in high technology. The moment we reached minimum viable general intelligence, we started accelerating to dominate our environment on a global scale, despite increases in intelligence that are actually relatively megre within that time: evolution acts over much longer timescales and can't keep pace with our environment, which we're modifying at an ever-increasing rate.
Moravec's paradox suggests we are in fact highly adapted to the task of interacting with the physical world-as basically all animals are-and we have some half-baked logical thinking systems tacked on to this base.

Replies from: Stefan_Schubert, TrevorWiesinger
comment by Stefan_Schubert · 2024-09-24T07:25:22.405Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Cf this Bostrom quote.

Far from being the smartest possible biological species, we are probably better thought of as the stupidest possible biological species capable of starting a technological civilization - a niche we filled because we got there first, not because we are in any sense optimally adapted to it.

Re this:

In evolutionary timescales, virtually no time has elapsed since hominids began trading, utilizing complex symbolic thinking, making art, hunting large animals etc, and here we are, a blip later in high technology.

A bit nit-picky, but a recent paper studying West Eurasia found significant evolution over the last 14,000 years.

comment by trevor (TrevorWiesinger) · 2024-09-23T23:45:13.291Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I agree that "general" isn't such a good word for humans. But unless civilization was initiated right after the minimum viable threshold was crossed, it seems somewhat unlikely to me that humans were very representative of the minimum viable threshold.

If any evolutionary process other than civilization precursors formed the feedback loop that caused human intelligence, then civilization would hit full swing sooner if that feedback loop continued pushing human intelligence further. Whether Earth took a century or a millennia between the harnessing of electricity and the first computer was heavily affected by economics and genetic diversity (e.g. Babbage, Lovelace, Turing), but afaik a "minimum viable general intelligence" could plausibly have taken millions or even billions of years under ideal cultural conditions to cross that particular gap.

comment by whestler · 2024-09-25T09:38:51.932Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, but where can I find details on the Petrov day event/website feature?

I don't want to sign up to participate if (for example) I am not going to be available during the time of the event, but I get selected to play a role.

Maybe the lack of information is intentional?

Replies from: ben-lang, nicolas-lacombe, nicolas-lacombe
comment by Ben (ben-lang) · 2024-09-25T10:12:29.850Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I have no idea what the event will be, but Petrov Day itself is the 26th of September, and given that LW users are in many timezones my expectation is that there will be no specific time you need to be available on that day. 

comment by nick lacombe (nicolas-lacombe) · 2024-09-25T16:28:31.708Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I feel like this should be a lw question post. and maybe an lw admin should be tagged?

comment by nick lacombe (nicolas-lacombe) · 2024-09-25T16:25:34.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm also wondering the same question.