It's not that great intelligence (be it "humans with amplified intelligence" or AI) is that powerful.<p>It's only because we overestimate intelligence we think of that, probably as part of the "Great Man" fallacy.<p>Science is not advanced merely by people with "amplified intelligence" -- it's advanced through thousands of scientists working independently and in co-operation and tons of hard "manual" work of testing, verification, experimentation etc.<p>Not just some sage coming in with his insights, a la Newton and Einstein (though that did happen with more frequence in the previous centuries when more "low hanging fruit" discoveries were available).<p>As for politics, it's usually "sociopaths" and/or good manipulators and liars that go far ahead, not people with high IQ specifically -- and those traits are even conflicting sometimes (e.g. people with high IQ but Aspergers).
Not to be a dick, but "they also might not". The article doesn't present many good reasons for believing augmented biological intelligence will be superior. Or even what that means, ie, for how long? Obviously the human brain is an existing form of intelligence, so in that sense it may be easier to bootstrap from. But ultimately, augmentations to the brain would be limited by the requirement of <i>being attached to a brain</i>.<p>The space of augmented brains is a tiny subset of the space of possible intelligent systems. There's comparatively unlimited scope for superior designs to augmented brains within the realm of artificial intelligence, or "every other nonbiological intelligent system concievable"<p>It's possible to believe that augmented brains might get a lead in intelligence for a short period, they are limited by their format, and would ultimately be overtaken by superior designs.<p>With regards augmentation prostheses, Kurzweil makes a strong case in his book "how to Create a Mind", that anything you plug into your brain is bandwidth limited by how much information the brain can actually process at a time, in a similar way to how most things in our visual field are immediately discarded from working memory and we can only really email with the small set of visual information that we pay attention to.
There are various forms of intelligence, most of which have a better chance of being excelled by AI. If reading inputs and detecting patterns in inputs to make sense of the world is what brain does, then AI can beat us hands down. Just the fact that it can hold huge amount of data in "working memory" and work as long as it takes to find patterns in it, it can find more patterns (read scientific discoveries) than any human ever aspired to find. If amplified human intelligence is still decentralized, portable, miniaturized device connected to our brain to enhance its abilities, there is no way it can compete with giant supercomputers running AI.
If it does occur I hope there is an equal increase in social skills it's terifying to read reddit /r/iamverysmart some truly smart people but psychopath level social skills.
Well everything still boils down to ethics and morals of the Intelligence.<p>At the end it all depends on what actions are taken using this intelligence by super AI or a human with amplified intelligence. Does this intelligence create a weapons to destroy the planet or helps in finding cure for cancer.
Nope. A human being with Amplified Intelligence is not going to be more powerful than Artificial Intelligence. Nor does the article do much to make a strong case. The author tries to talk about the psychological impacts of a radical increase in intelligence, but it's all armchair observations and guesstimates with little substance to actually digest and ponder.<p>Interesting topic, not interesting article regarding.<p>Could Amplified Intelligence happen? Sure. Would it allow us to be smarter? probably. But we wouldn't be able to outpace AI, because we're still human beings with finite space and time.