Superintelligence didn't create Heaven, a world of no suffering, first.
Superintelligence did not design biological genetics: including inquest.
Aren't there multiple Superintelligences, and how do they meta-analytically agree to disagree?
Superintelligence might accountably cryptographically sign its communications or orders; e.g. with W3C Verified Claims and W3C PROV (so that we might ascertain that Superintelligence did indeed themself say or do things)
> Aren't there multiple Superintelligences, and how do they meta-analytically agree to disagree?
This doesn't necessarily follow. In fact, it brings up the question of what even makes an entity distinct at all from its substrate, which is philosophical.
Anyhow, "disagreement" as a concept seems to result logically from a divergence of goals or capability to model reality. As such, I suspect that it is a uniquely human (or limited agent, an agent that can't recursively self-improve and an agent that desires aggregation of resources) mode of cognition.
>Superintelligence might accountably cryptographically sign its communications or orders; e.g. with W3C Verified Claims and W3C PROV (so that we might ascertain that Superintelligence did indeed themself say or do things)
I don't know how to comment on this beyond thinking it kind of misses the point. You don't really need to spin your wheels worrying about how a superintellect would be "accountable" when your ability to model reality would be essentially worthless.
Theory of Mind develops along with ideas about dependence, independence, and interdependence.
Humans tend to disagree according to strength of evidence given an epistemological fact-findimg process like "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "reject the hypothesis due to insufficient structural power"; we disagree about sources, methods, motives, and intent.
No, if one says they are "Superintelligence" and they've solved it, they have a job for you; what should one do?
> The goal of evidence-based practice is to eliminate unsound or outdated practices in favor of more-effective ones by shifting the basis for decision making from tradition, intuition, and unsystematic experience to firmly grounded scientific research.[3]
Can you not wrap your head around the possibility of something that is smarter than any human, but is also not at the level of some kind of omniscient omnipotent being?
1. My point is that YOU can't. The idea that a human can perfectly measure ability that far surpasses their own and compare if to other abilities that far surpass their own makes no sense.
2. A recursively self-improving AI would appear omniscient or omnipotent in a very short period of time. A recursively self-improving AI converting the solar system into compute for further recursive self-improvement would be unfathomable.
3. You're operating from an anthropic lens. Your conception of a superintelligence is a machine with an intellect that is slightly smarter than the smartest human. A machine with an IQ of 1000 would be God. We have no ability to conceptualize a machine with an IQ of 1,000,000.
