
Why no one is exponentially smarter than others - trishankkarthik
https://medium.com/tractatus-logico-universalis/on-why-no-one-is-likely-to-be-exponentially-smarter-than-others-66615846ed97
======
asimpletune
Wait, the whole argument hinges on assuming P != NP correct? Which isn’t
something that is proven... so by following the author’s analogy, I think left
with the conclusion that there is definitely a possibility that there are
people exponentially smarter than others.

The other assumption was based on the determinism of the machine. As far as I
understand, the brain is not a deterministic computer. We don’t really
understand how our brains work at all, but they definitely don’t work in any
way shape or form to how we understand a computer to work, this leaving even
more possibility for interpretation to an opposite conclusion.

Lastly, what about all the evidence of people who actually did accomplish
exponentially more work than others? We have the benefit of the hindsight to
check that real quick and, yup, I’d say 100% there are people who have done
it. Elon, Jobs, Gates, etc...

However, I’d agree with the author if they argued that we can’t predict who
will be exponentially smarter. To do that, we would have to simulate the
future or have an algorithm that can tell us, which obviously presents some
contradictions.

I think we all just sort have to wait and see.

~~~
asimpletune
Not to mention that smart people usually do amazing things by just changing
the rules and making the problem easier to solve (you can only make a horse go
so fast or pull so much, but you can invent an automobile or train)

This whole analogy I realized after thinking about it is just computer science
baby babble.

Fundamentally it comes down to not formally specifying the problem (not saying
I can, I can’t and neither can anyone else that I’m aware of)

People always want to cling to quantitative interpretations of qualitative
problems, and then declare QED, despite the whole thing being predicated off a
false premise to begin with (like the thing we’re discussing is an appropriate
candidate for an algorithmic interpretation to begin with).

And without a formal specification of the problem, we have no formal way of
checking our solution.

~~~
trishankkarthik
Firstly, have you read ImaCake[1]?

Secondly, if you're so smart, why didn't you write this essay, and refute it
yourself?

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871)

------
AbrahamParangi
I think a better model is not that some are exponentially smarter than others,
but that some folks are operating close to the problem manifold and the rest
aren't.

AKA, some people are solving classes of problems in approximately the most
efficient way (or relatively more efficient way) and most people are computing
solutions in exponentially inferior ways.

------
yowlingcat
To put it real lightly, it's a real stretch to make any kind of analogy
between the human brain does work and the way that semiconductor based
processors do work. The author's reference to Stephan Wolfram's idea of
universality (developed in a prior essay) seems unfortunate: >“The key
unifying idea that has allowed me to formulate the Principle of Computational
Equivalence is a simple but immensely powerful one: that all processes,
whether they are produced by human effort or occur spontaneously in nature,
can be viewed as computations.”

To borrow a metaphor from a recent HN thread about an eponymous paper called
"How to recognize AI snake oil" [1], there's an "incomplete and crude but
useful breakdown" on you can apply towards AI problems: genuine and useful
progress in perception, imperfect but improving work in automating judgment,
and fundamentally dubious attempts to predict social outcomes.

Let's think about where the idea of a theory of mind based on computational
complexity to determine "smartness" lands -- it's certainly not stimulus
detection, it's certainly not automating judgment, but it is about predicting
or modeling social outcomes. I would say that this application Wolfram's idea
is fundamentally dubious. Because of this, it's hard for me to say that the
premise, argument or conclusion of this essay is anything but fundamentally
dubious.

To at least leave a useful suggestion: this essay is missing an adequate
definition and exploration of what "smart" is, why it's a facet of human
nature and history, and what issues the concept causes. To the author, I'd
recommend starting off by building a better foundation there before jumping to
conclusions that are hard to take seriously.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577156)

~~~
trishankkarthik
1\. ?? You do realize there are self-appointed geniuses who actually make this
kind of arguments, right?

2\. That snake-oil AI paper guy, right though he may be here, you know he's
jealous of Bitcoin, right? Wrote a whole academic paper trying to justify how
Bitcoin wouldn't exist w/o academia. If he was so smart, why didn't he write
Bitcoin himself?

3\. If this was so obvious and you're so smart, why didn't you write it
yourself?

~~~
yowlingcat
Are you seriously asking me why I didn't write something which I just told you
is a worthless thing to spend time writing about? Probably because I think
it's a worthless thing to spend time writing about. I'm not sure what you're
trying to prove here.

Look, just because I don't buy your argument doesn't mean I buy the premise
that "genius" exists the way it's constructed in society. I find that pretty
fallacious too, but for different reasons. I don't think you're going to get
to the core of why genius is a flawed concept with a strained analogy to
computational complexity (which doesn't work) rather than by digging into
historical context. I think if you focus on that, you'll probably make more
progress on coming up with something interesting to say.

------
ImaCake
The PhD example late in this essay is one that I have lived. I am a failed PhD
student who worked for 4 years on my research with no first author
publications to show for it. The professors from my old school always express
surprise and confusion that I didn't succeed since I apparently have the right
combination of smarts. But, to me, my failure is more down to bad luck and
unfortunate circumstance than any inate ability.

I would love to hear other's experiences with PhDs in the context of the
essay's example.

~~~
ISL
Luck matters more than we are often led to believe. One can generate luck, to
an extent, through persistence.

Leonard Mlodinow has written two books that you might find both resonant and
uplifting:

Feynman's Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life , and The
Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.

Furthermore -- if you went to grad school and learned something, either about
the subject or yourself, then the effort was not a failure. In the long game,
it isn't about the degree nor the piece of paper.

~~~
ImaCake
Thanks :) I'll check them out. I think leaving was a great choice, academia is
filled with madness, and I am happier not climbing up the impossible pyramid
to professorship. But I am happy to support and work with those with such
ambiition since they can do great things!

------
trishankkarthik
Related to the G's essay[1] on genius. AMA!

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/genius.html](http://paulgraham.com/genius.html)

~~~
carapace
I think you're skirting a truly fascinating question: can "higher
consciousness" violate complexity bounds?

~~~
__s
Consider a very fast classical computer is simulating a universe with
newtonian physics. There's no concept of quantum mechanics in this universe.
You create a black box where people in this simulation can ask you questions.
You also have a quantum computer. Now you can answer questions that require
quantum computing which they cannot answer in their universe

Next step: we're a simulation in a universe which has ways to violate
complexity bounds we hit with quantum computers

------
TheGallopedHigh
I guess for the same reason we don’t have giants walking around either, these
are depending upon many random distributions of interactions that ultimately
lead to a Gaussian distribution of said characteristic (height or intelligence
etc) via the central limit Theorem.

------
carapace
Ha! Title so foolish it disproves its own premise.

~~~
carapace
Sorry! I couldn't resist.

Snark omitted, here's an alternate idea of "genius":

The word refers to a kind of spirit or daemon (same root as Genii). Consider
the 'daimonion (literally, a "divine something")' of Socrates:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)#S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_\(classical_mythology\)#Socrates)

> In ancient Rome, the genius (plural in Latin genii) was the guiding spirit
> or tutelary deity of a person, family (gens), or place (genius loci).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius)

> Jinn, also Romanized as djinn or Anglicized as genies (with the more broad
> meaning of spirits or demons, depending on source), are supernatural
> creatures in early pre-Islamic Arabian and later Islamic mythology and
> theology.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn)

To be a genius is to be favored or assisted by one of more of these invisible
people.

I don't know if they can solve any problem in NP in polynomial time but they
can apparently predict winning lottery numbers which suggests to me that there
must be something interesting going on from a computational complexity POV.

~~~
trishankkarthik
If you're so smart, and this idea so obvious, why didn't you write about it?

~~~
carapace
I apologize, I didn't mean to offend you, I was just making a joke. You're
actually making a great point I think.

------
Zhenya
1\. Author writes and posts article on HN.

2\. Commenters criticize article.

3\. Author responds to criticism with " why didn't you write this yourself"
over and over.

Wow..

~~~
yowlingcat
Ironically, the author's defensive responses to criticism seem to be the only
thing being exponentiated here.

------
hyperpallium
If knowledge and skill is uniformly hierarchically decomposablbe, then
everyone can do exponentially more work, over time. Technology's "increasing
returns".

But there may be thresholds, such as working memory needed, because the skill
or knowledge cannot be decomposed further due to interconnections.

It seems likely there exist some potential skills or knowledge that require
more working memory than any human has, had or could ever have.

------
yodsanklai
Intelligence is hard to define. I believe that some people are "exponentially"
better for very specialized tasks, for instance, solving logical puzzles, or
internalizing rhythm in music, but it isn't necessarily noticeable, and
doesn't translate to great accomplishments.

~~~
trishankkarthik
Define it rigorously. We have, in terms of the amount of computation in m time
steps.

~~~
harshalizee
No part of this is remotely rigorous. It all hinges on a few house of cards-
like permises.

------
vendiddy
Even if the conclusion may be true, I find the argument unconvincing. There
exist large differences in intelligence between some species, so it's
plausible to think the same could be true within a species.

------
sebsito
One doesn’t have to be exponentially smarter than others in given moment – by
compounding smart ideas and decisions one can get exponentially better
outcomes in time.

------
aurizon
Will you say that when an alien being with an IQ of 3,234,876 appears?

------
PopePompus
Gosh I wish people would stop using exponentially as a synonym for "a lot".

~~~
arnarbi
I had the same reaction to the headline, but in this particular article it
actually means exponential.

(It does make a leap from computation to intelligence though.)

~~~
egdod
Exponential in what?

