It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year.
I outlined a design in http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html It consists of lots of narrow specialists and an infrastructure for routing messages to the right experts. Nobody will control it or own it. I am not going to build it. It will be more complex than any human is capable of understanding. But there is enough economic incentive that it will be built in some form, regardless. The major technical obstacle is natural language modeling, which is required by the protocol. (Thus, my research in text compression). I realize that a full (Turing test) model can only be learned by having a full range of human experiences in a human body. But AGI is not about reproducing human form or human thinking. We used human servants in the past because that was what was available, not because it was the best solution. The problem is not to build a robot to pour your coffee. The problem is time, money, Maslow's hierarchy of needs. A solution could just as well be coffee from a can, ready to drink. --- "J Storrs Hall, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm. I'd suspect you'd spend all your time and effort organizing the > people. > Orgs can grow that fast if they're grocery stores or something else the new > hires already pretty much understand, but I don't see that happening > smoothly > in a pure research setting. > > I'd claim to be able to do it in 10 years with 30 people with the following > provisos: > 1. same 30 people the whole time > 2. ten teams of 3: researcher, programmer, systems guy > 3. all 30 have IQ > 150 > 4. big hardware budget, all we build is software > > ... but I expect that the hardware for a usable body will be there in 10 > years, so just buy it. > > Project looks like this: > > yrs 1-5: getting the basic learning algs worked out and running > yrs 6-10: teaching the robot to walk, manipulate, balance, pour, understand > kitchens, make coffee > > It's totally worthless to build a robot that had to be programmed to be able > > to make coffee. One that can understand how to do it by watching people do > so, however, is absolutely the key to an extremely valuable level of > intelligence. > > Josh > > On Friday 08 February 2008 11:46:51 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: > > My assumptions are these. > > > > 1) A team size (very) approximately as follows: > > > > - Year 1: 10 > > - Year 2: 10 > > - Year 3: 100 > > - Year 4: 300 > > - Year 5: 800 > > - Year 6: 2000 > > - Year 7: 3000 > > - Year 8: 4000 > > > > 2) Main Project(s) launched each year: > > > > - Year 1: AI software development environment > > - Year 2: AI software development environment > > - Year 3: Low-level cognitive mechanism experiments > > - Year 4: Global architecture experiments; > > Sensorimotor integration > > - Year 5: Motivational system and development tests > > - Year 6: (continuation of above) > > - Year 7: (continuation of above) > > - Year 8: Autonomous tests in real world situations > > > > The tests in Year 8 would be heavily supervised, but by that stage it > > should be possible for it to get on a bus, go to the suburban home, put > > the kettle on (if there was one: if not, go shopping to buy whatever > > supplies might be needed), then make the pot of tea (loose leaf of > > course: no robot of mine is going to be a barbarian tea-bag user) and > > serve it. > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
