On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines

Every time I come across a skeptic article like this, I just remind myself of the sarcastic paper "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" and can’t help but laugh. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

One of my favourite contributions to this debate: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987 "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines In recent years, a number of prominent computer scientists, along with academics in fields such as philosophy and physics, have lent credence to the notion that machines may one day become as large as humans. Many have further argued that machines could even come to exceed human size by a significant margin. However, there are at least seven distinct arguments that preclude this outcome. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible."

Reminds me of the brilliant "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" [1]. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible. [...] The term “supersized machine” implies a machine that has crossed some threshold, which is often denoted “human-level largeness.” However, it is not clear what “human-level largeness” could refer to. Has a machine achieved human-level largeness if it has the same height as the average human? If it has the same volume? The same weight? [...] When one begins to consider these questions, one quickly concludes that there are an infinite number of metrics that could be used to measure largeness, and that people who speak of “supersized machines” do not have a particular metric in mind. Surely, then, any future machine will be larger than humans on some metrics and smaller than humans on others, just as they are today. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Why do people keep reposting that first article? I encourage you to reread it with a critical eye. A choice quote: In contradistinction to this orthodoxy, I find the following five heresies to have more evidence to support them. Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept. Humans do not have general purpose minds, and neither will AIs. This is awfully similar to "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf). EDIT: Re: energy efficiency: the problem is that humans are too energy efficient. Your brain can keep functioning after 3 days of running across the Savanna without food, which is (a) awesome, and (b) not really helpful nowadays. The cost of this is that you can only usefully use a little energy each day, say 4 or 5 burgers at most. AGI prototypes will usefully slurp in power measured in number of reactors.

> I'm reminded of the joke paper claiming machines can never surpass human largeness, because what does largeness even mean? Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf