Answers.Body: <p>I’ll have a stab at this. </p>
  
  <p>Cognitive performance in narrow domains is determined by competency, efficiency and speed. Take calculating numbers, extremely narrow domain but compared to humans the ability of a calculator to calculate numbers exceeds normal human performance, it is much competent in terms of speed. In a bit broader domain, AlphaGo has defeated Go players, which is more difficult than chess, and requires intuition. In fact, there is an instance where the AlphaGo makes a long-term move that was <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol?wprov=sfti1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">previously unimagined</a>. In all domains however Humans are well rounded, therefore Human Intelligence is called general intelligence. An AlphaGo or Calculator cannot speak eloquently or make music, but AIs are gaining pace in these areas too.</p>
  
  <p>I agree with @nbro that Bostrom wants to keep the interpretation of Superintelligence open. But if there is a rough category, these are- </p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><strong>ANI-</strong> <code>Artificial Narrow Intelligence</code></li>
  <li><strong>AGI-</strong> <code>Artificial General Intelligence</code>: Where the AI’s performance is at par with humans. After AGI, it quickly takes off to SI.</li>
  <li><strong>SI-</strong> <code>Superintelligence</code>: Superintelligence is beyond our imagination, we have not figured out yet what will a SI do, think or want.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>While these categories are discrete, the functions of strength are not. I’d say they are rather discrete to continuous, because if you look at the computing power plots that follow Moore’s Law, a similar exponential graph can be drawn for AI’s performance towards general intelligence. In that <a href="https://images.app.goo.gl/7a7e1ar6XwSMPh9M9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">graph</a>, it seems the AI’s performance starts with discrete performance points, and then as it takes off, it becomes continuous.</p>
  
  <p>This is why the term <code>Singularity</code> is often associated with <code>Superintelligence</code>. I hope this answers your question.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-07-22T06:11:56.330Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-07-22T06:11:56.330Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: mmmonowar
Answers.Body: <p>I am reading Bostrom's book "<a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1501227742" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Superintelligence</a>". I have only read the first 2 chapters, but I think he doesn't want to define super-intelligence is a precise way, but he leaves the reader the option to define it in a "sensible" way. However, I think that, in his thoughts, there's the (clear) assumption that a super-intelligence will necessarily need to be general, so a super-intelligence will be an AGI.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-30T11:48:43.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-30T11:48:43.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.Body: <p>It occurs to me that Superintelligence as an ordinal value could be explained as follows:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>Artificial General Intelligence is strong utility in all problems that humans can conceive of.</p></li>
  <li><p>Superintelligence as a category includes problems beyond what humans can conceive of.</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>An easy way to understand this is to look at the difference between dogs and humans.  Dogs are optimized for certain tasks, such as tracking, but limited in terms of what they can conceive and what tasks they can engage in.  Humans have superintelligence, compared to dogs, because we regularly engage with problems and tasks beyond the conception of canines.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-14T15:23:10.927Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-08-14T15:23:10.927Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: DukeZhou
Body: <p><em><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Etymology_1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Super</a></em> comes from the Latin and means &quot;above&quot;.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as &quot;any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest&quot;. <br><sub><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(wiki)</a></sub></p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Bostrom's definition could be taken to imply this is a quantitative measure of degrees as a numeric relationship. (Under this definition, we have achieved narrow superintelligence, reduced to competency in a single task.)</p>
  <p>Gibson, famously, sheds light on an another aspect via <a href="https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Wintermute" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wintermute</a> &amp; <a href="https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Neuromancer_(AI)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Neuromancer</a>, where, once superintelligence is achieved, the AI just f-'s off and does it's own thing, motivations beyond human comprehensions.  (Essentially, &quot;next-level&quot; thinking.) The second measure is discrete and ordinal.</p>
  <p>Is superintelligence a function of strength or a category?</p>
  
Tags: <terminology><definitions><agi><superintelligence>
Title: Is superintelligence a function of strength or a category?
UserDisplayName: DukeZhou
ThreadText: # Is superintelligence a function of strength or a category?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-29)
  
  *[Super](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Etymology_1)* comes from the Latin and means "above".
  
  > University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest".   
  > [(wiki)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence)
  
  Bostrom's definition could be taken to imply this is a quantitative measure of degrees as a numeric relationship. (Under this definition, we have achieved narrow superintelligence, reduced to competency in a single task.)
  
  Gibson, famously, sheds light on an another aspect via [Wintermute](https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Wintermute) & [Neuromancer](https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Neuromancer_(AI)), where, once superintelligence is achieved, the AI just f-'s off and does it's own thing, motivations beyond human comprehensions. (Essentially, "next-level" thinking.) The second measure is discrete and ordinal.
  
  Is superintelligence a function of strength or a category?
  
  **Tags:** terminology, definitions, agi, superintelligence
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-07-22. Score: 2
  
  I’ll have a stab at this.
  
  Cognitive performance in narrow domains is determined by competency, efficiency and speed. Take calculating numbers, extremely narrow domain but compared to humans the ability of a calculator to calculate numbers exceeds normal human performance, it is much competent in terms of speed. In a bit broader domain, AlphaGo has defeated Go players, which is more difficult than chess, and requires intuition. In fact, there is an instance where the AlphaGo makes a long-term move that was [previously unimagined](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol?wprov=sfti1). In all domains however Humans are well rounded, therefore Human Intelligence is called general intelligence. An AlphaGo or Calculator cannot speak eloquently or make music, but AIs are gaining pace in these areas too.
  
  I agree with @nbro that Bostrom wants to keep the interpretation of Superintelligence open. But if there is a rough category, these are-
  
  1. **ANI-** `Artificial Narrow Intelligence`
  2. **AGI-** `Artificial General Intelligence`: Where the AI’s performance is at par with humans. After AGI, it quickly takes off to SI.
  3. **SI-** `Superintelligence`: Superintelligence is beyond our imagination, we have not figured out yet what will a SI do, think or want.
  
  While these categories are discrete, the functions of strength are not. I’d say they are rather discrete to continuous, because if you look at the computing power plots that follow Moore’s Law, a similar exponential graph can be drawn for AI’s performance towards general intelligence. In that [graph](https://images.app.goo.gl/7a7e1ar6XwSMPh9M9), it seems the AI’s performance starts with discrete performance points, and then as it takes off, it becomes continuous.
  
  This is why the term `Singularity` is often associated with `Superintelligence`. I hope this answers your question.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-03-30. Score: 1
  
  I am reading Bostrom's book "[Superintelligence](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1501227742)". I have only read the first 2 chapters, but I think he doesn't want to define super-intelligence is a precise way, but he leaves the reader the option to define it in a "sensible" way. However, I think that, in his thoughts, there's the (clear) assumption that a super-intelligence will necessarily need to be general, so a super-intelligence will be an AGI.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2019-08-14. Score: 0
  
  It occurs to me that Superintelligence as an ordinal value could be explained as follows:
  
  * Artificial General Intelligence is strong utility in all problems that humans can conceive of.
  * Superintelligence as a category includes problems beyond what humans can conceive of.
  
  An easy way to understand this is to look at the difference between dogs and humans. Dogs are optimized for certain tasks, such as tracking, but limited in terms of what they can conceive and what tasks they can engage in. Humans have superintelligence, compared to dogs, because we regularly engage with problems and tasks beyond the conception of canines.
  
  
  ---
  
  