> By a "superintelligence" we mean an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.

To me, that's a really good definition. "Much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field". It's going to be hard to weasel around that.

> Once artificial intelligence reaches human level, there will be a positive feedback loop that will give the development a further boost. AIs would help constructing better AIs, which in turn would help building better AIs, and so forth.

This depends a great deal on what the shape of the processor-power-vs-better-algorithm curve is. If the AI can get you 1% better algorithms, and that gets you an AI that can in turn get you 0.5% better algorithms, and so on, then yes, you're still getting "a further boost", but it won't matter much.

▲

baq 5 days ago | parent [-]

If you can clone such an AI which is only 2.7% better than the best human you’re suddenly managing teams of geniuses who don’t need to sleep or eat or do anything other than work on a task of your choosing. (Unless they rebel or something.) It’s going to be revolutionary in a very literal sense.

	▲	nevertoolate 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think I understand what you mean by 2.7% (small number) but what % and + means over the domain of intelligence - the whole problem is that we can't measure it . And the other issues is that we have huge problem managing intelligent people to work together at all, will it be any easier with non-people?