Thread: What is super-intelligence?

I would bet there are many different definitions. I like to define intelligence as having the capacity to learn, so in my case super intelligence would evoke a much greater capacity to learn. Does super-intelligence imply that one can mentally compute faster or better than a machine or does it mean one can design a machine that can compute faster and better than anything else devised?

Perhaps super intelligence means one possesses the knowledge of all things or that one can solve any problem. I suppose the omniscient would not have anymore capacity for learning so maybe that might be as far as intelligence can go. Perhaps omniscience is in a category all by itself, the ultimate intelligence.

One could compare intelligence. Is humanity a super intelligence if you compare us to an amoeba? Would a super intelligence be able to do anything a less intelligent creature can do? I mean would the super-intelligent have highly developed senses.

Is it all about self awareness, consciousness?

Well... intelligence is relative. So there are only different grades of, perhaps, processing power and memory in a being, computer or biological. Super-intelligence sounds arbitrary to me. I'm not going to get into consciousness...
I would assume that thinking faster than a computer, and designing a fast computer, are vastly different mental abilities, like the difference between the highly eccentric artist and the human calculator math major, who could never fill in each other's roles (most of the time). I would think that a super-intelligence (though we have not defined that yet, which is the problem) could do both easily, in other words, it would be like most of us, averaged out in every mental respect, but exceeding far beyond us... it retains the ratios, but increases the proportions unimaginably. Why specialize if it's super?
And omnipotence is a logical fallacy. Isn't it? (crap, there's another tangent, let's not discuss it) Can you make a rock so heavy you can't lift it? (Making yourself stronger means you can lift it, there is no easy way out... Does God need a plan if he can wave a pinkie and get the results instantly, with the same validity and perhaps more effectiveness, since no souls were cast into hell if he so wished? WTF is he doing?)
So, I would assume, is omniscience... I've got hare-brained schemes on how to make a computer with the ability to store enough information to simulate itself, so it therefore has infinite processing power (you can boil it down to troll science), but seriously now. Can anything ever comprehend its own workings?

Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron

Well... intelligence is relative. So there are only different grades of, perhaps, processing power and memory in a being, computer or biological. Super-intelligence sounds arbitrary to me. I'm not going to get into consciousness...

Also tied to different types of intelligence based on sensory and perceptual skills of the species in question. Some bats are extraordinarily intelligent at figuring the out the position, speed and predicted trajectory of small flying insects using senses humans don't even possess and only understand through computers and engineering that barely replicate their amazing feats. Squid are more intelligent in spacial awareness of their numerous legs etc. Even within our own range it hard to define sometimes. Is the barely communicative savant who can calculate ten digit long division in their head in a split second more intelligent than a general high school kid who gets As and Bs in topics ranging from pre-calculus to pottery?

I don't doubt we can probably boil down intelligence to something as simple as raw processing power--but the application of that power has enormous variability. Those application are what usually matters.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Also tied to different types of intelligence based on sensory and perceptual skills of the species in question.

Yes I think a super intelligence(SI) would include having an extensive repertoire of senses current humans don't experience.

Has science fiction shaped our opinion of the super intelligent? Do we equate SI with an alien's ability to navigate deep space or develop fantastic weaponry, machines, etc.? I'm not sure if we even consider alien SI thought or sensory processes because of sci-fi's influence.

Take War of the Worlds for instance.... Would a super intelligent alien fail to recognize there might be a problem with immunity from basic microbial agents dominating our planet? I would hope so but it doesn't matter since being able to traverse space long distance qualifies them as super intelligent.

qualifies them as super intelligent

I think we're using difference definitions of intelligence. An ancient Egyptian sailing the Indian Ocean 2500 years ago might have said the same of our Aircraft carriers but in reality his crew was just as intelligent as modern humans.

There's a famous quote something about us being mistaken for gods. Technology at least for our species is not a good measure of intelligence.

What I meant by qualifying for super-intelligence is that sci-fi writers would have you believe that mastering space travel is the least aliens would have to know to be considered super intelligent.

Well I don't see what you're getting at, it seems as though you're trying to liquify the definition of intelligent. Being smart, wise, and intelligent are all different things as are other things that are different.
1. Sci Fi writers would have you believe a lot of things but in the end it's fiction.
2. Would you compare a human super intelligent next to say a dog?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I would bet there are many different definitions. I like to define intelligence as having the capacity to learn, so in my case super intelligence would evoke a much greater capacity to learn. Does super-intelligence imply that one can mentally compute faster or better than a machine or does it mean one can design a machine that can compute faster and better than anything else devised?

There is actually a way of quantifying "sentience", known as the Sentient Quotient. The idea is that beings who are more intelligent must necessarily have the smallest brain with the fastest possible processing speed. They are thus not only are they able to learn more, but they can do it much faster too. They would also have an understanding of aspects of reality that we probably cannot even begin to comprehend.

There is a table which basically breaks down what kinds of knowledge and level of consciousness/cognition could be accessible as one goes up the SQ rating. Apparently we humans are very low down (SQ ~ 10), given what is physically possible.

I think it would go without saying that beings or machines that are several SQ points above us would be mutually incomprehensible to our limited intelligence.

Has science fiction shaped our opinion of the super intelligent? Do we equate SI with an alien's ability to navigate deep space or develop fantastic weaponry, machines, etc.? I'm not sure if we even consider alien SI thought or sensory processes because of sci-fi's influence.

The main problem with our notions of what constitutes "advanced technology" is that it is very species-centric, and for the most part culturally determined. It is not at all clear what level of intelligence is necessary for there to be advanced-technology. Larry Niven, for example, in his book The Mote in Gods Eye has toyed with the idea of a species in which its members were not self aware or conscious in any human sense (their species was modeled on eusocial insects), and yet are fully capable of space travel.

More down to Earth, honey bees are known to make honey combs with mathematical precision. For this reason I think that sentience is a far better measure of intelligence than the tools that are used.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron

Well... intelligence is relative. So there are only different grades of, perhaps, processing power and memory in a being, computer or biological. Super-intelligence sounds arbitrary to me. I'm not going to get into consciousness...

Also tied to different types of intelligence based on sensory and perceptual skills of the species in question. Some bats are extraordinarily intelligent at figuring the out the position, speed and predicted trajectory of small flying insects using senses humans don't even possess and only understand through computers and engineering that barely replicate their amazing feats. Squid are more intelligent in spacial awareness of their numerous legs etc. Even within our own range it hard to define sometimes. Is the barely communicative savant who can calculate ten digit long division in their head in a split second more intelligent than a general high school kid who gets As and Bs in topics ranging from pre-calculus to pottery?

I think there is far less wiggle room than you believe. I don't really think that any of these examples constitute a form of intelligence. Amazing abilities, yes, but not intelligence as psychologists would understand it.

A person who can learn more things faster, can see and understand patterns better than most, proficient in abstract thinking, are capable of understanding a wide range of subjects regardless of content, and so on, can probably be said to be more intelligent than a person who is deficient in one or all of these abilities.

"super" intelligence?

Well, it can't be mind over matter, there's no science for that.

It would have to be a legend in your own mind, right?

In some limited ways dogs and dolphins are far more intelligent than humans.

Originally Posted by Xelloss

I think there is far less wiggle room than you believe. I don't really think that any of these examples constitute a form of intelligence. Amazing abilities, yes, but not intelligence as psychologists would understand it.

Human phychologist for the most part study humans, and frame their definition of intelligence based on the range of human mental capabilities. Even that being said, there are psychologist who are working with better definitions such as Gardner, who's theories about multiple intelligences, while not widely accepted by psychologist are widely accepted by other fields such as education. For example, someone could be a genius at understanding special patterns (probably still a retard by dolphin standards) and drawing but socially handicapped by inability to read emotions in others.

I'm actually not a fan of the multiple intelligence theory. I think it is too critically flawed for it to be a serious competitor with more standard theories of intelligence.

How about duel coding theory, which combines a lingual with some other imagery, such as a visual or sounds, to help people memorize and understand. It's validity seems pretty well supported in the literature about learning.

Yes I have heard of it. The studies behind it are well established, and the idea is that both audio and visual stimuli can overload the brain. I haven't really studied it in detail, so I can't really give an opinion on it.Don't get me wrong, I understand that people learn things differently. I just think that those who are said to be more intelligent probably have more potential. Certainly that would be the case with species that are higher up on the SQ ladder than we are.

RE on dogs and dolphins and other animals (you will have to forgive me for not using quotes, I'm typing from my phone and it's capabilities are limited).Yes, it is true that some of their abilities exceed our own. I think Temple Grandin and Mark Bekoff are the ones you want to refer to for a detailed account of the cognitive abilities of other animals, as there are no doubt too many to list here. Birds are also known to be quite intelligent and (in the case of the Raven) even capable of using reason. The fatal flaw with the rest of the animal kingdom is that they don't have any way of augmenting their intelligence like humans do. We utilize language to abstract most of our thoughts, and are fortunent enough to be upright and have opposable thumbs. We can therefore augment it via language and writing and art and so on. The dolphins and elephants may have the brains, but without a way of abstracting their thoughts efficiently, their cognitive capabilities remain diminished compared to our own.

Originally Posted by Reprise

Well I don't see what you're getting at, it seems as though you're trying to liquify the definition of intelligent. Being smart, wise, and intelligent are all different things as are other things that are different.
1. Sci Fi writers would have you believe a lot of things but in the end it's fiction.
2. Would you compare a human super intelligent next to say a dog?

I defined intelligence in the OP as a capacity to learn. Smart might be knowing how to use what you've learned and wise may be knowing when to use it.

I remember an episode of Star Trek where a race of beings(Organians) had evolved to become pure energy/thought. They pretty much knew everything and did whatever they wanted. Yet they choose to take human form and if you were to look at them you wouldn't know just how intelligent they were. So how would we then, recognize super intelligence? Or could we?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I remember an episode of Star Trek where a race of beings(Organians) had evolved to become pure energy/thought. They pretty much knew everything and did whatever they wanted. Yet they choose to take human form and if you were to look at them you wouldn't know just how intelligent they were.

Just a word of caution, Star Trek really isn't a good guide on either biology or psychology (physics isn't the only thing they botch up on a daily basis...).

Now that's out of the way, being intelligent isn't just knowing lots of stuff, it is also the quality of the thoughts behind it too. Super-intelligent beings not only would have vast amounts of information available to them, they would probably understand whole aspects of reality and modes of thought not currently accessible to us.

So how would we then, recognize super intelligence? Or could we?

That would depend how far up the SQ ladder (also known as the Troposophic Level by some singularity enthusiasts) the entity is. If they are sufficiently advanced, they probably wouldn't even be comprehensible to us, any more than human beings are comprehensible to termites or trees.

Information available would be limited by natural sensory capabilities and technology.

Been wracking my brain trying to think of sci-fi examples of primitive super-intelligent species--are there any other than an occasional series show about destroyed civilizations? There's no reason there shouldn't be--sort of like us visiting ourselves 20000 years ago, or an indigenous people 100 years ago.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Been wracking my brain trying to think of sci-fi examples of primitive super-intelligent species--are there any other than an occasional series show about destroyed civilizations? There's no reason there shouldn't be--sort of like us visiting ourselves 20000 years ago, or an indigenous people 100 years ago.

If you are looking for a potentially sci-fi example, then I suppose Elephants would fit the bill better than hunter-gatherers. For example, Elephants are one of only three species on Earth known to mourn for their dead (the other two being Homo Sapiens and the now extinct Neanderthals). You can see the video below:



It shouldn't be particularly hard to imagine a slightly different evolutionary outcome, in which the world is dominated by super-intelligent elephants rather than human beings.

Unless elephants know something we don't then I wouldn't consider mourning the dead as an intelligent act. More not understanding I would think. However acts like it may have had a hand in developing abstract thinking.

I wonder if evolution would actually go as far as developing super-intelligence. Super-intelligence would probably rise from necessity. Imagine a predatory world where there are several equal or borderline equal intelligences existing at one time. Super intelligence could be a simple byproduct of survival. Could that actually happen here?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Unless elephants know something we don't then I wouldn't consider mourning the dead as an intelligent act. More not understanding I would think. However acts like it may have had a hand in developing abstract thinking.

Yes indeed, for it would indicate that they at least understand their own mortality.

I wonder if evolution would actually go as far as developing super-intelligence. Super-intelligence would probably rise from necessity. Imagine a predatory world where there are several equal or borderline equal intelligences existing at one time. Super intelligence could be a simple byproduct of survival. Could that actually happen here?

I'm not sure if it could arise under natural conditions. If we take Earth as an example, it would probably be unlikely, since even a small difference in their intellectual capacity would be enough to tip the scales in their favor. One only needs to look at what happened to all the other hominid species (and other species of comparable intelligence living today; dolphins and elephants are dwindling in numbers quite rapidly) in order to get an idea of how ruthless our distant ancestors were at using our own intelligence to gain an advantage...

If we ever do find an extra-terrestrial super intelligent species, it will probably be the only one of its kind on its home world.

Originally Posted by Xelloss

[If we ever do find an extra-terrestrial super intelligent species, it will probably be the only one of its kind on its home world.

I just wonder what kind of pressure a super intelligent species would have been under in order to adapt and evolve to that stage. Imagine how intelligent the animal that's in 2nd place would be. Perhaps there are other factors such as having the time to evolve to super intelligence.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I just wonder what kind of pressure a super intelligent species would have been under in order to adapt and evolve to that stage. Imagine how intelligent the animal that's in 2nd place would be. Perhaps there are other factors such as having the time to evolve to super intelligence.

Couldn't really say. The problem with intelligence is that after a certain point natural selection tends to be thrown out the window, particularly since they are likely able to learn adaptive behaviors, or wipe out competitors, on a timescale much shorter than evolution usually operates at. If we take our planet as an example, the level of intelligence doesn't have to be that high before they are capable of adapting to virtually any environment and dominating any would-be second placers. The Homo Erectus, for example, has been known to inhabit areas as far north as Europe and as far east as Java. They also had the ability to control fire and build water rafts. Their other competitors, such as the Homo Habilis, were too inconsequential to put up any meaningful competition, certainly of the kind that would have allowed super-intelligence to emerge.

Even if the "second-place" animal were just as intelligent as the "first-place" one, that may still not be enough. For example, the Neanderthals were known to actually have bigger brains on average than the Cro-Magnons. They also were known to bury their dead, and possibly even interbred with early modern humans. However, they apparently lacked language. As a result, they were wiped out in a geological blink of an eye upon contact with the Cro-Magnons.


If "super-intelligence" were to have a chance at evolving naturally, climatic or geological factors would probably be much better at exerting the kind of pressure necessary for it to emerge. Perhaps a planet with extreme climate variation may be home to one or more super-intelligent species, since intelligence would increase the chances of procreation (they would be able to adapt far more effectively to their environment than less intelligent species).

Originally Posted by Xelloss

[However, they apparently lacked language. As a result, they were wiped out in a geological blink of an eye upon contact with the Cro-Magnons.

What are humans lacking? What do we require to take the next leap forward (upward)? Do we need to reacquire certain animal traits such as night vision, echo location, acute sense of smell, etc. We didn't need those things to arrive at intelligent but perhaps we will if we ever encounter a more intelligent adversary or competitor.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

What are humans lacking? What do we require to take the next leap forward (upward)? Do we need to reacquire certain animal traits such as night vision, echo location, acute sense of smell, etc. We didn't need those things to arrive at intelligent but perhaps we will if we ever encounter a more intelligent adversary or competitor.

There are several things that we lack. For instance, we lack the ability to think in another fashion other than in a linear, intuitive one. There is this old saying among those in the environmental circles that the greatest short coming of the human species is our inability to understand the exponential function. It is also unclear if rationality comes naturally to us, or if we have the capability as a species to think over the long term (longer than a few years, or in some extreme cases, a few days). For the moment, it appears that you have to be trained to think like that, much like we train a dog to obey human commands, or a chimpanzee to understand sign language. And even then it takes years and years of practice to get it right.

We also lack true photographic memory, as it doesn't really occur except in a few individuals with some form or autism or other neurological condition (most people who say they have good memory are probably using some sort of mnemonic technique in order to enhance their recall ability). So, at least in terms of cognition, those are probably good places to start improving. And of course, we can always improve the speed at which we learn things.

As for other animal senses, I don't really know how much extra senses would contribute to intelligence. While we lack some extraordinary senses and abilities, we also possess others that many animals don't have. For example, we humans are far more sensitive to color compared to other mammals (most are color blind in one or more wavelengths). And while we can't run very fast, humans have by far the most stamina of any species on the planet; it was believed that persistence hunting was one of our earliest hunting techniques, and is still practiced today by isolated tribes. And cats apparently lack the ability to taste sweets. So, it is far more likely that what senses we have are based on their survival value rather than whether or not they contribute to intelligence.

However, I'm sure that having traits such as night vision, etc. would help bring different subjective experiences to human cognition, thereby expanding our range of thought. But I'm not sure if it would be much different to how we perceive them now (i.e. using technology to detect them). I think that we will probably continue to use technology to do that for us.

Here's a thought. Evolution has taken life and intelligence to where we are right now. As far as we know we could be the highest form of intelligence in the universe. If we are then do you think that we have the knowledge or will at least obtain the knowledge to genetically create a super intelligent human? IOW's SI cannot be attained simply by natural selection, it needs assistance.

Def:super intelligence is intelligence possessed by something mechanical (CPU of supercomputer) or muscular (man).
former is predictable and latter is not
former is limited and later is not

source: in religion , the fountain of intelligence flows from only one place.... God... and He is the supreme intelligent / designer/ planner. so see and ponder how intelligent work is this universe!!

in different fields:
in bio:::: it is function of genes.... so there must be super genes inside a person genome to make him superman
in chemistry::: it is the chemical reaction inside brain
according to computer::::: it is similiar to parallel processing

Usage: the best use of intelligence is done by::: religious men then politicians then scientists.... so the wisest are clergmen ( this statement is highly controversial as this is science forum and i am not ranking scientsits as most intelligent here)

exception: do you refer to extraterrestarial intelligence like that shown in movie TrAnSforMer. (i think this as near to bul.....t)

I think part of any "enhanced intelligence" will involve learning to overcome our social conditioning that magnifies the negative to the point where anything other than what is obvious is discounted for the vast majority of people. The more education a person has, the worse this seems to be. I am not referring to anything religious, just the ability to be creative.
The same solution may help enable people to combine their intelligence in a synergistic fashion just like social insects do. Insect algorithms have been used to solve complex multi-variable problems that teams of "experts" could not solve. Now if we could combine the experts like the insects, what could we accomplish?

For me one of the most intriguing examples of this comes from a business / entrepreneur book called "Lucky or Smart" by Bo Peabody. Peabody is finishing undergrad with average grades and a bad idea. However, he links up with some programmers and he applies his unique ability to combine the talents of others in a fluid, adaptive (not controlling), manner. If his talent was "smart", he likely would have had better grades or more advanced degrees. If it was "luck", he would have had just one success (he had three). I believe Peabody was neither lucky or smart. He was creative. The result was that he created about half a billion in wealth in about three years. Most of the rest of us would rather say no, no, no, (as we have been conditioned) than try to do something like this.

Originally Posted by dedo

The same solution may help enable people to combine their intelligence in a synergistic fashion just like social insects do. Insect algorithms have been used to solve complex multi-variable problems that teams of "experts" could not solve. Now if we could combine the experts like the insects, what could we accomplish?

If a team of experts was not able to solve the problem then how did it happen? How many experts does it take to solve a problem?

How many Princes does it take to be smug?

Could hypothetical superintelligence possibly AVOID becoming smug?

What a hypotenuse!
Prince has once again outdone himself! Congratulations are in order, dotcomrades!

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by dedo

The same solution may help enable people to combine their intelligence in a synergistic fashion just like social insects do. Insect algorithms have been used to solve complex multi-variable problems that teams of "experts" could not solve. Now if we could combine the experts like the insects, what could we accomplish?

If a team of experts was not able to solve the problem then how did it happen? How many experts does it take to solve a problem?

I tried to find the book, and so far it has not turned up. It was a book on "collective intelligence". One of the areas it reviewed was software based on insect algorithms and how it was used to optimize a system with numerous variables. If I locate it, I will get the reference. It has been a couple years since I read the book, so I cannot tell you how many "experts" could not solve the problem.

Musing upon topic, superintelligence would imply rapid solution of problems with accuracy and determining optimum course of action ammong all those available, not so?

Perhaps too rapidly for concious thought- in short, would be very hard to distinguish from "intuition". Also freedom goes out the door, because knowing precise optimum and doing anything else would be stupid, therefore ruled out by definition.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Perhaps too rapidly for concious thought- in short, would be very hard to distinguish from "intuition". Also freedom goes out the door, because knowing precise optimum and doing anything else would be stupid, therefore ruled out by definition.

If the freedom of getting it wrong is more important to you then I'm afraid that is the doing anything else.

Super intelligence would need to be able to resolve time to the nth degree. An intelligence based on digital clock pulses would not have this ability.

I want to address the original post (OP):
Super-intelligence would be the speed of finding solution and the amount of memory it can have: in this case: super-fast-solution, and super-thorough-solution. This definition is based upon the study of artificial intelligence. One example is Deep Blue: it has similar code to a normal chessgame (that we had on our desktop computer), but the speed and amount of memory that Deep Blue use has allowed it to became almost omniscient in a chess game (thus very intelligent in chess game).

Intelligence is actually is a very well defined term. It define a system (a brain or a computer) which use similar concept to find solution (but with different algorithm). The fact that it is soo well defined is the reason why computer scientist once speculate that they can build humanlike AI in the 1980s (this fuel the movie fantasy like: TRON, Wargames, 2001 (notice IBM logo in the space shuttle console), and Terminator, but the reality is: their computing power was severly limited & they poorly understood the problem associated with human condition: eg: speech, visual recognition, common sense, ect)

The point is: intelligent is simply speed and memory. If you memorize alot of stuff: you can solve alot of stuff, and if you had higher IQ: then you can solve quicker than normal person do. Intelligence is just that... and the rest of the problem is the implementation (how well the system is designed to understand & solve the problem).

Originally Posted by msafwan

The point is: intelligent is simply speed and memory. If you memorize alot of stuff: you can solve alot of stuff, and if you had higher IQ: then you can solve quicker than normal person do. Intelligence is just that... and the rest of the problem is the implementation (how well the system is designed to understand & solve the problem).

If intellegence is simply speed and memory, what if the answer were not in memory?

If I were to tell my computer to go and jump off a cliff it would obey my code. On the other hand the human intellect would say, that is not in my best interest so I will disobey the coder on this occassion.

As I understand, the biological computer is supposed to get around this problem and as I have posted else where, is the biological computer going to be a digital or an analog device?

Originally Posted by FeedbackPath

Originally Posted by msafwan

The point is: intelligent is simply speed and memory. If you memorize alot of stuff: you can solve alot of stuff, and if you had higher IQ: then you can solve quicker than normal person do. Intelligence is just that... and the rest of the problem is the implementation (how well the system is designed to understand & solve the problem).

If intellegence is simply speed and memory, what if the answer were not in memory?

If I were to tell my computer to go and jump off a cliff it would obey my code. On the other hand the human intellect would say, that is not in my best interest so I will disobey the coder on this occassion.

As I understand, the biological computer is supposed to get around this problem and as I have posted else where, is the biological computer going to be a digital or an analog device?

Brain (like computers) can simulate the condition for "jumping off the cliff", and play out this event inside the head to see the outcome. As one realize that jumping off a cliff can lead to a fatal drop: he quickly abhor that ending, so he decided not to jump off a cliff: and that was the right decision. The basic principle of intelligence for computer is also of simulation: it try different possibility and eliminate undesirable ending (eg: checkmate in chess game).

What an AI coder do is not giving a direct order to an AI but instead merely creating a system which perform the above simulation and checking. For Deep Blue: the coder itself is not as good as Kasparov; he merely code the system that solve the problem themselves. Even the coder didn't know the outcome.

However, of course... biological computer are extremely more advance than the computers we had today. The system is highly efficient and can perform complex task with the lowest of power. For example: grand chess player can do as good as Deep Blue by only using their memory... and their brain aren't even full... I mean: A grand chess player know that he doesn't need to think to win... he just "know" it is the right move... he only think 1 step ahead (unlike novice who tried harder).

(garbage deleted)


Knock it off.
Lynx

The point is: intelligent is simply speed and memory. If you memorize alot of stuff: you can solve alot of stuff, and if you had higher IQ: then you can solve quicker than normal person do. Intelligence is just that... and the rest of the problem is the implementation (how well the system is designed to understand & solve the problem).

There's a nice exposition of this when you to the section titled "II. How Knowledge Improves Thinking"

AFT - A Union of Professionals - How Knowledge Helps

There are also a few other relevant items on this list of Willingham's articles, Articles - Daniel Willingham

He really is an excellent guide to cognitive science generally.

If humans can design machines to perform tasks that we would normally associate with a super intelligence, and those machines in turn go on to design greater things than we can imagine, then are not the machines just an extension of ourselves? The super intelligent label then, would belong to us.

Super intelligence is when you are the best or among the best in all issues concerning math, lecture, reading, writing, music, painting, designing novel things, fabricating things without being explained how, learining without being taught, devising the outcome of situations, and seeing the truth behind the facade of people. When you are good at all aspects accessible to the human mind, then you are super intelligent.