On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My view is a little different. I think these answers are going to come out > of a combination of theoretical advances with lessons learned via > experimenting with early-stage AGI systems, rather than being arrived at > in-advance based on pure armchair theorization... >
That was also my initial position, before I learned that there is in fact a domain for productive armchair theorizing in this case, and that it seems to be not-that-directly connected to the technical AGI stuff. There is interplay between FAI and AGI in the fundamental concepts. Thinking about how to do what you want may inform the design, and thinking how to implement powerful optimization may inform the way communication of intention needs to be framed. Old AI fallacies and poorly understood concepts employed in thinking about AI are problems for both FAI and AGI, for somewhat separate reasons, but common problems all the same. And then there is a part where you start at your own side, as a human, that is so removed from implementation of AGI to make specific design issues irrelevant to the problem that needs solving in any case. True, there are questions that need to wait, but there are others that don't. It might even turn out that a working AGI design invented without considering the FAI questions will only be capable of going FOOM in an arbitrary direction, although I doubt it, and think that working on AGI without rigorously understanding FAI may still be worthwhile, if you know where to stop should you succeed. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.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
