An argument against the possibility of super-intelligence is that the intelligence of a creation will be limited by the intelligence of its creator. How reasonable is this argument?
Of course the intelligence of a product is limited by the intelligence of its creator. Just not to the intelligence of its creator.
That would be about as reasonable as the idea that the speed of a car is limited to the speed of its creator.
Or the playing strength of a chess program to the Elo of its creator.
Or the ability of a neural network to differentiate between dozens of dog breeds to the dog expertise of its creator.
So, not very reasonable.
AI is frequently used to discover things that would take laborious amounts of time for humans to do. For example, AI can be used to find the optimal configuration for a mother-board layout, or identify best fit parameters for a financial model. Frequently, the AI can do a better job at a task and do it more qucikly than a human. Therefore, in many applications, the AI is already more intelligent than the creator at specific tasks.
Here are just a few things that AI can already do better than humans:
- Playing Chess
- Playing Jeopardy
- Detecting Cancer
To argue against the possibility of a super-intelligent AI is somewhat of a moot point since it has already been proven.