Once developed, one solely needs to turn up the execution rate of an AGI, which would result in superhuman performance on most practical and economically meaningful metrics.
Imagine if for every real day that passed, one experienced 100 days of subjective time. Would that person be able to eclipse most of their peers in terms of intellectual output? Of course they would. In essence, that's what a speed superintelligence would be.
When most people think of AI outperforming humans, they tend to think of "quality superintelligences", AIs that can just "think better" than any human. That's likely to be a harder problem. But we don't even need quality superintelligences to utterly disrupt society as we know it.
We really need to stop arguing about time scales for the arrival of AGI, and start societal planning for its arrival whenever that happens. We likely already have the computational capacity for AGI, and have just not figured out the correct way to coordinate it. The human brain uses about 20 watts to do its thing, and humanity has gigawatts of computational capacity. Sure, the human brain should be considered to be "special purpose hardware" that dramatically reduces energy requirements for cognition. By a factor of more than 10^9 though? That seems unlikely.
I think so, too.
With just self-improvement I think you hit diminishing returns, rather than an exponential explosion.
Say on the first pass it cleans up a bunch of low-hanging inefficiencies and improves itself 30%. Then on the second pass it has slightly more capacity to think with, but it also already did everything that was possible with the first 100% capacity - maybe it squeezes out another 5% or so improvement of itself.
Similar is already the case with chip design. Algorithms to design chips can then be ran on those improved chips, but this on its own doesn't give exponential growth.
To get around diminishing returns there has to be progress on many fronts. That'd mean negotiating DRC mining contracts, expediting construction of chip production factories, making breakthroughs in nanophysics, etc.
We probably will increasingly rely on AI for optimizing tasks like those and it'll contribute heavily to continued technological progress, but I don't personally see any specific turning point or runaway reaction stemming from just a self-improving AGI.
Just a thought: Isn't lacking intellectual capacity, what keeps us from understanding, how the human brain actually works? Maybe an AGI will eventually understand it and will construct the next AGI generation with biological matter.
Like if all modern breakthroughs and disruptive new ideas in machine learning were sent back to the 70s, I don't think it'd make a huge difference when they'd still be severely hamstrung by hardware capabilities.
it's quite a leap to think or even imagine that the class of systems generally being spoken of here are usefully described as "having urges"
That's arbitrary anthropomorphizing the concept of intelligence.
And FYI we can already write software that can 'replicate' and has the 'urge' to do so very trivially.
Replication can lead to a positive feedback loop. My point was, that this could accelerate the 'intelligence score' beyond human inventiveness.
Depending on how intelligent the system actually is initially, what it wants to do, may become more important, than what it is told to do.
> And FYI we can already write software that can 'replicate' and has the 'urge' to do so very trivially. Thanks. Yes we can. But could any such software be called intelligent, so that replicating and improving recursively would lead to an increasing 'intelligence'?
Also, humans do not 'improve' or become more 'intelligent'. They just mutate and change randomly in a randomly changing environment. From a Scientific Materialist perspective, there's no such thing as 'intelligence'. We are bags of random noise, indiscernible from the matter around us.
The entire assumptions around 'intelligence' and 'positive evolution' (i.e. getting better) rely on a 'magical' understanding of the world. Of course, Spirituality gives us a few cues there by most scientific types don't like magical thinking hence the funny paradox of Scientific Materialists running around trying to create something (life) which Scientific Materialism itself denies the existence of as a principle (i.e. universe is matter/energy that works in accordance with a bunch of rules - there's no 'life' there).