Talk:Superintelligence

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superintelligence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Transhumanism Mid‑importance

Superintelligence' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:

See changes to:

edit - history - watch - purge

To Do List:

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt an article.
Help out with the To-do lists

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles)
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles

Maintenance / Etc

Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
And always write for an encyclopedia.

Create

Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

a transhumanism stub

Your immediate attention

false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Futures studies High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too many lists, other types of superintelligence, definition

Lists can be good for understanding. But this article probably has too many numbered or bullet lists (currently 10, which is much more than any article I have seen). We may consider reducing it by half.

One other potential issue is that there is one section about biological superintelligence in the middle of sections about artificial superintelligence. ASI clearly deserves more content than biological superintelligence, but that might confuse readers. Perhaps we could have a section "Other forms of superintelligence", covering biological superintelligence and other speculative paths like networks and orgnanizations brain-computer interfaces.

I think the first sentence was better before (I believe this could be removed, for accuracy and simplicity: ", ranging from marginally smarter than the upper limits of human-level intelligence to vastly exceeding human cognitive capabilities", see this discussion) Alenoach (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased graph

Hi, The graph shown here (File:Test scores of AI systems on various capabilities relative to human performance - Our World in Data.png) can't be generalized, contrary to what it seems to be. There are numerous sources cited on [1] that show otherwise. Yann (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this alternative version that precises the benchmark names, so that it's precise about what the results are. Is it ok to replace the old image with it? Alternatively, there could also be this one from the 2024 AI index, that gives very similar data than the one from Our World in Data, but that presents fewer benchmarks.

Otherwise, if you disagree with the concept of showing benchmark results, I would say that benchmarks are not perfect, but they offer a factual metric. As you showed, there are articles that claim that AI just doesn't understand anything and are just stochastic parrots, or that show examples of where AIs fail. But there are also many other researchers (most I would guess) that simply consider that AI understands, to some degree.[2] And when AI starts to surpass humans on every objective test for understanding (including tests for which the data is private and unavailable from the internet), can we still contend that it doesn't understand? Alenoach (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:AI-based religion

Related. I've just started it! Nextada (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Superintelligence Temins

"Several writers have suggested that human civilization, or some aspect of it (e.g., the Internet, or the economy), is coming to function like a global brain with capacities far exceeding its component agents. If this systemic superintelligence relies heavily on artificial components, however, it may qualify as an AI rather than as a biology-based superorganism." Considering such system as an AI is incorrect, since it's thinking processes rely on human brains, and computer systems are just used to connect brains to each other. By analogy, "a human with 2 peg legs, 2 mechanical hook-like arm proshtesises, 1 denture, which walks on 2 crutches" is not a robot - as his movement is directed by brain and done by muscle contraction, while inorganic parts are used so he can utilize muscle contraction in correct way. --95.167.183.86 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence, I think it is too ambiguous. Alenoach (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Group Mind

"Undid revision 1308767361 by 95.167.183.86 (talk): this paragraph is about improving *individual* intelligence, and the concept of group mind appears to be mostly used in science-fiction rather than future studies"

Brain-computer interfaces could be used to create group minds, by sending data from one brain to another and back. And, it can be used to increase *individual* intelligence - since it is possible to be member of group mind and still be individual with it's own goals and ideas (since there are many types of group minds, and some types allow for preservation of individuality). --95.167.183.86 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia aims to synthesize what reliable sources say. Do you have a reliable source covering the concept of group mind as a plausible candidate for superintelligence? Alenoach (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something "appears to be mostly used in science-fiction rather than future studies", doesn't mean that it's impossible or won't be invented. Many things from old science fiction got invented in our time (e.g. handheld long-range communicators, aka smartphones) - and many actual serious future predictions have failed (e.g. think what Victorian-era authors thought about what 21st century would look like). As such, hard sci-fi (but not soft sci-fi) can be put on same level as actual future studies. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But when we cover science-fiction, we usually try to clearly distinguish it from statements about what will or may happen in the future. When a concept like group mind appears in a science-fiction work, it doesn't necessarily mean that the author thinks it may well happen in the real-world, it might just make for an interesting story (although as you noted, hard sci-fi may perhaps be an exception).

To include content on group mind to this article, what would be needed are reliable sources that directly supports the statement and that cover the concept of group mind in relation to superintelligence. There is also in this article the consideration that mixing science-fiction with explicit statements about the future may confuse readers, and we may not have sufficient science-fiction-related content to make a separate section on it. Alenoach (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An issue in your edits is that most of it is unsourced and the added sources are not explicitly related to the concept of superintelligence. Thus, your paragraph risks being quickly removed (see Wikipedia:No original research). That being said, the result on rats, which is sourced, may be valuable to mention in another article, like Brain transplant. Alenoach (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is some correlation between brain size and intelligence (page itself states that "to evolve larger heads" would make humans smarter; some info is in Brain Size and Evolution of the brain pages; also see there). 2) Implanting neurons into the brain makes brain bigger ([3] [4] [5]). 3) Cranioplasty is normally used to repair damaged skulls and replace broken segments of bone - but they can be re-purposed to make skull bigger (like, if you know how to repair a glaring hole in a bottle - then, with sufficient materials, you could make the bottle bigger by making extensions). 4) Medical Exoskeleton or steel gorget/collar can prevent now-embiggened head from breaking the neck (as exoskeletons are used for people who can't walk by themselves). All in combination, may result in extra-smart human, aka superintelligence, since bigger brain is smarter. All those are not sci-fi technologies; rather, it's 4 technologies which are already invented, but not combined yet (just like "tank" is combination of "tractor", "cannon" and "armor" - with tractors being invented in 19th century, yet a thought to rivet armor to it and cram cannons inside only came in The Great War); in other words, it's non-standart use of already existing technologies. The sources have relation to those 4 techs when taken separately, and the paragraph combines them. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that in Wikipedia, sourcing is really important. If you come up with an idea for which you can't find reliable sources, adding it to Wikipedia would be original research, which is generally avoided. Even assuming you have a source for each of the four statements, if you connect multiple sources to imply a conclusion that is not supported by any of the sources, it is original synthesis. Note also that links to other Wikipedia articles are not considered sources.

If you want to add content on biological superintelligence, it is better to start by searching for reliable sources on this topic. Then you may synthesize the content of such sources into the Wikipedia article to fill coverage gaps. If you don't find content on biological superintelligence in reliable sources, maybe you would be interested in contributing to other articles, like intelligence amplification or Brain transplant, for which it may be easier to find reliable sources. Alenoach (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

Majority of the page is written, as if Superintelligence, Recursive Self-Improvement and other related topics only apply to AI's. Parts about super-smart biological intelligences are either absent or afterthought. As such, i think page needs some re-writing. --95.167.183.86 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for these topics? What is missing from the current description in the article? Elestrophe (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In current description in the article, most information about biological superintelligences is missing. Such as how to make it, what consequences it could have, is it dangerous, how biological superintelligence would differ from artificial superintelligence in practical standpoint, etc. Most phrases are worded, as if superintelligence and related terms could only apply to AI's. It's also missing information about group mind variants. --95.167.183.86 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely AI-generated content

Hi -- I added the AI-generated tag here, specifically in reference to the 2024 edits by Orexin, who has been blocked for adding poorly reviewed AI text to Wikipedia. The text here, much of which still remains, contains a lot of strong indicators of LLM use, and needs review; issues have been pointed out above and elsewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the edits. The edits honestly aren't bad except for the formatting, and unlike with many of Orexin's other edits, the references really existed and were relevant. I reviewed it at the time, and it seems good in terms of accuracy. But yes, pretty sure it's AI-generated, and it really overused lists. What should we do about it? Alenoach (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the text is an accurate description of the sources, the main problems are the "Advantages," "Challenges," etc. sections, which are not well sourced and full of weasel words, and various pieces of synthesis/OR like These examples highlight the potential for catastrophic outcomes even when an ASI is not explicitly designed to be harmful, underscoring the critical importance of precise goal specification and alignment.. Especially questionable in this case because the whole AGI extinction risks thing is... not somewhere where there is agreement on what is "critically important." Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aidy P. I saw that you made a commit trying to remove AI-generated content. For your information, here are the commits that motivated the "AI-generated" template. I have verified the content, it looks decently sourced and accurate. But there are remaining issues with tone and overuse of lists. Alenoach (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Aidy P (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“a stark example”, “another illustrative scenario”, “These examples highlight the potential for catastrophic outcomes even when an ASI is not explicitly designed to be harmful, underscoring the critical importance of precise goal specification and alignment.”, “emphasizing the need for extreme caution in ASI development”. The excessive use of lists were the items are one sentence long, the “superficial analysis” verbs and the overuse of present participle clauses at the end of sentences are MASSIVE AI-generated telltales. 100% at least partially AI-generated. I say a good portion of the article needs to be entirely rewritten. Aappalajaarpunga (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]