Another way to look at it is with regards to capacity for self-modification. If a corporation can't re-structure itself into being much smarter than the smartest human, its intelligence is fundamentally limited, and therefore so is the risk. Does software have this restriction? We don't really know yet, but it's hard to point to exactly why it would.
The "corporation as AI" metaphor isn't about some abstract future possibility, it's an explanatory mechanism for how the world is so thoroughly messed up _right now_.
Corporations _are_ acting as misaligned optimizers. Solving that problem is hugely important. However, the "AI" comparison breaks down somewhat when you start thinking about how we might actually fix the problem. With corporations, we (i.e., states) have tools that we can use to regulate bad actors. Software AI, however hypothetical at the moment, seems likely to be a different game all-together.
If they are truly general AI then it's likely that their reaction to that limitation and regulation will be not dissimilar to a person's but I see no reason to assume that limiting them will be impossible.
The incentives are fundamentally what shape the systems including the corporations. Blaming corporations alone is a simplification - the same incentives converge to the same outcomes akin to how power vacuums are filled by warlords.
> The incentives are fundamentally what shape the systems including the corporations.
These are key observations, and sadly I suspect there's a Prisoner's Dilemma style thing going on which makes corruption, sexual harassment, bigotry, and office politics somehow "rational" and individually maximising behaviours (for corporations, as well as the individuals they're composed of) whenever any of the competing corporations are known or suspected to be behaving corruptly.
Combined with the combative nature of thinking/reporting about corporate results - where for example FAANG stock price performances are compared to each other, assigning winners and losers, without any relevant incentives or accolades for the entire tech industry having grown the value of the entire sector. A corporation with a 15% YoY increase is deemed a "loser" if some of it's competitors manages 20%.
And we've spent well over half a decade demonising anyone who criticises Capitalism - thus deeply entrenching incentives that are poor for society as a whole, but which have "less poor" outcomes for the corporations prepared to be most ethically barren.
After all, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that corporations, especially silicon valley corps, give more lip service to red tribesmen than blue. Maybe that's just because the blue tribe is the more powerful, and the corps are rightfully saying the magic words that allow them to keep their profits.
There's a very good argument top be made, I think, that "capitalism" is the biggest and most dangerous ponzi scheme ever invented. Most people will happily participate thinking "this is fine .gif" while untapped suckers/resources keep dropping enough "return" to early "investors", but when the house of cards all collapses there will be no underlying foundation for the vast majority and only the people at the very very top of the pyramid scheme ever actually benefited at all.
Ever stopped to wonder why Musk ands Bezos are so interested in going to Mars???
collective intelligences such as nation states are capable of producing tools such as nuclear arms or biological weapons whose impact on society may be civilisation ending.
It doesn't follow at all that a limit on intelligence implies a limit on risk. Collective intelligence is already high enough to produce threats that could wipe us off the planet without a problem. This is because most risks, once let loose on the world by someone intelligent enough, don't need to be intelligent in themselves to destroy humans. Viruses aren't intelligent at all.
Or for a more mundane example, we're already in the process of slow-cooking the planet for some stock-market gains
The assumption here is that risk correlates to intelligence. That doesn't seem to be borne out in history. Risk (the likelihood of bad outcomes) can be emergent, and arise from well-meaning, reasonably (not super) intelligent people operating within a simple framework.
I'm assuming this is satire, since that's apparently exactly the goal of corporations.
[0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass%20of%20solar%20sys...
It's not the goal, it's the consequences of the rules of the game used to reach the goal.
If our economy was based on writing poetry and corporations would compete to write the most soul enticing profound poetry or art in general, the side effect wouldn't entail the depletion of resources and ruining of the ecosystem. Surely we'd find other ways to make our fellow human life miserable, perhaps all this art will make many suffer untold pains as the meaningfullness of our existence is unraveled, or whatever.
The rules of the game are the framework. The incentives are the driving force to push things down the gradient. The consequences are hard to predict. That works for wide range of rules and incentives
(for supporting evidence to this claim, see "high frequency trading", "self driving cars", and "the leader of the free world" <smirk>)
An ASI could convince you that turning yourself into a paperclip is a fun and exciting new opportunity to liberate you from $PERSONAL_PAIN and finally allow you freedom to engage in $PERSONAL_FANTASY.
On a geological timescale scale, it's very likely that's what the historians of the hyper-intelligent shade of the colour blue will write about us:
"There was once a virulent disease emerging on a single watery planet 1/3rd of the way along a spiral arm in some uninteresting galaxy. Fortunately the Universe's immune system never even needed to take action. It was greedy and short lived and starved itself of resources and died out before it had even metastasised much beyond it's own gravity well, it barely made it to it's next closest planet, and sent nothing out of that solar system's gravity well but a couple of primitive machines and all that daytime TV that was fashionable for a brief period a few Type-O main sequences ago..."
In what sense? Certainly the ability of large groups of people to research and create new technology exceed the ability of a single individual. The R&D capabilities of a large corporation are going to vastly exceed that of a lone hermit in the woods.
No individual line of code produced by a FAAMG is superhuman, but producing codebases of billions of lines of code is definitely outside the ability of any lone human. If you find yourself in court facing a corporation, you'll learn they can spend multiple human lifetimes learning relevant precedents, processing discovered evidence, and constructing their arguments.
It may not be runaway ever-improving superhuman AI, but pretending it is only as intelligent as the humans that make it up is missing the forests for the trees.
This is covered in the video.
He breaks down efficiencies of large corporations (or really any organization) into two types of gains:
(1) gains from parallelism, and (2) gains from synergy (e.g. people having better ideas by working in groups).
For (1) his argument is that while you get a much larger amount of work done, the maximum quality is just the max over the parallel units. E.g. if your R&D department consists of N scientists working independently, you'll get N times the work done, but the quality of each unit will be at best the quality of your best scientists.
For (2) his argument is essentially that the quality of ideas generated by human organizations is gated by the ability of people within the organization to recognize that the idea is good. He then does a simple simulation where he argues that if even if you have everyone in your company brainstorming great ideas, after a certain number of people, say 1000, you have diminishing returns on how good an idea you can generate and recognize as good. His claim is then, in contrast, an AI is not constrained by this limitation.
He doesn't seem to account for "standing on the shoulders of giants" effects where institutions build up knowledge over decades. That seems to me to imply a model similar to compound interest, at least over some time period before the corporation becomes stagnant and dies off.
It is possible to some degree "team stack" to boost quality over any component larger group but it is inefficient and tends to have worse results than a smaller scaled more skilled one.
Of course in the real world many things require a mix of both effectively - too much labor for one or a small group of experts but too complex for an amateur horde to handle.
An R&D lab certainly can do more work than any single person could do in their lifetime, but are the ideas fundamentally better? Can you point to an idea and say: "no person could possibly have thought of that"?
Q1: Yes and No. From what I've seen (anecdata) an group of people working together ten to generate better ideas than one person could. The No comes from the fact that oftentimes one person came up an idea that they wouldn't have found without the other people.
Q2: Much better. Normally through 2 ways: first, defense of an idea make you have to improve it so that it gets accepted. second if the idea is collaborated upon the multiple feedbacks on forming the idea improves it.
Q3: My first knee jerk reaction to this question was that you need to limit the amount of people involved because communication is key: say 6-9 people. But on further thought, if your communications channels are set up well (forums, slack, IRC etc.), then you can go to the wisdom of the crowds, so maybe scale would work.
Q4: If the R&D lab is set up right, yes, you could get fundamentally better ideas, for various reasons: - facilities, collab, standing on the shoulders of giants (by this I mean building on what others have already built) etc.
Or for a more extreme example - consider the totality of human civilization as an example of groups of humans working together. People like Einstein and Hawking wouldn't have been able to have had the ideas they did if they were dropped in 20,000 BC. The knowledge we have now isn't simply the work of individual animals with extraordinary thoughts, it's the result of large groups of these animals working together.
Now certainly the benefits in corporate R&D labs don't come anywhere close, but I find it hard to believe that they simply drop to zero.
However, I suspect that there's also a counter-force, a "diminishing returns" effect: as more people get involved in an organization, coordination becomes more difficult, communication becomes more expensive. If this converges to some limit, then that's the smartest a human organization can be.
Maybe better methods of organizing knowledge could help raise that limit, or more effective modes of communication, but my suspicion is that the upper bound for "organizational decision making capability" is within one or two orders of magnitude of a single person, not vastly more. No idea how we'd actually quantify that, of course!
Corporations aren't the only kind of grouping of people together one or more purposes as a unit. This definition also seems to ignore the 'artificial' part of artificial intelligence.
If we're going to stretch the definition of ai that thin, wouldn't a school of fish or a flock of birds be considered 'ai'? Or at least an ant colony or bee hive?
What about forests? They form vast networks of interdependent nodes through mycorrhizae that connect the roots of all the trees and shrubs in the forest. It's used to pass nutrients and information in the form of electrical and chemical signals throughout the network.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network
In what way does a corporation fit the definition of an ai that all these other things do not?
"An AI is some constructed entity which, starting with a goal, uses its intelligence to make changes to the world in order to bring that goal to fruition. One of the things about AI that is worrying is that its system-of-values might have no relation whatsoever to those possessed by human beings, and the best way for it to accomplish its goals might be to do things that most people would consider quite nasty. AI systems that are trying to maximize something are in constant tension with the laws that we put in place to try to keep them from steamrolling over everything in pursuit of their goals. Corporations fit the bill, under the assumption that the goal is 'maximize shareholder value'."
While a nest of ants or a swarm of bees certainly exhibit interesting emergent behavior, perhaps even collective intelligence, they 1). aren't constructed and 2). don't have clear goals.
You could argue that smaller groups of people fit the bill too, I guess. Maybe the difference is that corporations tend to have distinct goals which outlive their members, and that they have special recognition under the law as independent entities. Not sure.
Slightly tongue in cheeky; in most countries it seems corporations gained the right to vote before many minorities (or even majorities) [citation needed?]. If we assert that voting is the measure by which one affects political power
To paraphrase: yes, corporations function as agents, but their maximum performance is limited by the capabilities of their employees. A corporate AI may have a much broader set of skills than any single person, and may be able to tackle many concurrent tasks, but as an "intelligent agent" its decision making capabilities probably don't scale exponentially (or even linearly) with its headcount. In the sense that a corporation's maximum intelligence is likely to be in the same ballpark as the smartest humans, it can't be seen as a true superintelligence.