d the human brain – only the ability to duplicate its parts and the connections between them.
Most of the great discoveries of humanity were achieved either by a single scientist who reached a goal before others got there or through huge international collaborations. So, what would each route mean for the development of SI?
Well, if a single group of scientists were to rapidly find solutions to the issues preventing AI and WBE, it’s most likely their results would produce a single superintelligent machine. That’s because the field’s competitive nature might force such a group to work in secrecy.
Consider the Manhattan Project, the group that developed the atom bomb. The group’s activities were kept secret because the U.S. government feared that the USSR would use their research to build nuclear weapons of their own.
If SI developed like this, the first superintelligent machine would have a strategic advantage over all others. The danger is that a single SI might fall into nefarious hands and be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Or if a machine malfunctioned and tried to do something terrible – kill all humans, say – we’d have neither the intelligence nor the tools necessary to defend ourselves.
However, if multiple groups of scientists collaborated, sharing advances in technology, humankind would gradually build SI. A team effort like this might involve many scientists checking every step of the process, ensuring that the best choices have been made.
A good precedent for such collaboration is the Human Genome Project, an effort that brought together scientists from multiple countries to map human DNA. Another good technique would be public oversight – instating government safety regulations and funding stipulations that deter scientists from working independently.
So, while the rapid development of a single SI could still occur during such a slow collaborative process, an open team effort would be more likely to have safety protocols in place.
Check out my related post: Can AI redistribute wealth for us?