Jiri, I think where you're coming from is a perspective that doesn't consider or doesn't care about the prospect of a conscious intelligence, an awake being capable of self reflection and free will (or at least the illusion of it).
I don't think any kind of algorithmic approach, which is to say, un-embodied, will ever result in conscious intelligence. But an embodied agent that is able to construct ever-deepening models of its experience such that it eventually includes itself in its models, well, that is another story. I think btw that is a valid description of humans. We may argue about whether consciousness (mindfulness) is necessary for general intelligence. I think it is, and that informs much of my perspective. When I say something like "mindless automaton", I'm implicitly suggesting that it won't be intelligent in a general sense, although it could be in a narrow sense (like a chess program). Terren --- On Thu, 8/28/08, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] How Would You Design a Play Machine? > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 10:39 PM > Terren, > > >is not embodied at all, in which case it is a mindless > automaton > > Researchers and philosophers define mind and intelligence > in many > different ways = their classifications of particular AI > systems > differ. What really counts though are problem solving > abilities of the > system. Not how it's labeled according to a particular > definition of > mind. > > > So much talk about Friendliness implies that the AGI > will have no ability to choose its own goals. > > Developer's choice.. My approach: > Main goals - definitely not; > Sub goals - sure, with restrictions though. > > >It seems that AGI researchers are usually looking to > create clever slaves. > > We are talking about our machines. > What else are they supposed to be? > > >clever slaves. That may fit your notion of general > intelligence, but not mine. > > To me, general intelligence is a cross-domain ability to > gain > knowledge in one context and correctly apply it in another > [in terms > of problem solving]. The source of the primary goal(s) > (/problem(s) to > solve) doesn't (from my perspective) have anything to > do with the > level of system's intelligence. It doesn't make it > more or less > intelligent. It's just a separate thing. The system > gets the initial > goal [from whatever source] and *then* it's time to > apply its > intelligence. > > Regards, > Jiri Jelinek > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
