Brad Paulson wrote >>> Fortunately, as I argued above, we do have other choices. We don't have to settle for human-like. <<<
I do not see so far other choices. Chess is AI but not AGI. Your idea of an incremental roadmap to human-level AGI is interesting, but I think everyone who tries to build a human-level AGI already makes incremental experiments and first steps with non-human-level AGI in order to make a proof of concept. I think, Ben Goertzel has done some experiments with artificial dogs and other non-human agents. So it is only a matter of definition what we mean by AGI 1.0 I think, we now have already AGI 0.0.x and the goal is AGI 1.0 which can do the same as a human. Why this goal? An AGI which resembles functionally (not necessarily in algorithmic details) a human has the great advantage that everyone can communicate with this agent. It would be interesting for me which set of abilities you want to have in AGI 1.0. In a certain sense, I agree with you. The goal of human level AGI is too ambitious. It seems to me like the wish to go to mars without having ever built airplanes. There is a lot of room between chess and human level AI and it is really a big question whether we can ignore this room and can do the big step to AGI with only one conception stage. ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
