If we do not agree how to define AGI, intelligence, creativity etc. we cannot discuss the question how to build it.
And even if we all agree in these questions there is the other question for which domain it is useful to build the first AGI. AGi is the ability to solve different problems in different domains. This definition is ok, but it is useless to answer the question how to build it. We need a difficult but well understood domain which is AGI-complete and as small as possible but not too small to avoid the risk to build only AI instead of AGI. Only if we have a well defined problem to solve then we can reduce the philosophical questions. In my opinion the domain of proofs in mathematics is AGI-complete. The complexity is very high. The problem is well defined. The domain is not random. Threfore intelligence is useful in this domain. There are easy and difficult regularities, e.g. 1+2+3+.+n = 0.5*n*(n+1) , pi =3.14159. The crucial ability to recognize patterns in this domain in order to handle the exponential complexity is important to create mathematical proofs. Mathematics is no artificial domain as we all know that mathematics applies to many real word problems including physics. Probably, most people of this list think that mathematics is too small for AGI. But if you say that embodiment is not necessary for AGI, then better drop it. Embodiment and natural language is of course interesting and useful as Ben has pointed out. But I think it creates too many additional problems and costs. Why we should spend time for things which we do not regard as necessary for AGI? Choose a domain which is as small as possible but still sufficient for AGI. So I would propose the domain of mathematics. But I'm sure, everyone has his own preferred domain for AGI. And this is only one of the reasons, why we do not move forward to the engineering level of AGI. Von: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2008 17:01 An: agi@v2.listbox.com Betreff: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list Hi all, I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list. It seems to me there are two types of conversations here: 1) Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by moderately-sized groups of people 2) Discussions about whether the above is even possible -- or whether it is impossible because of weird physics, or poorly-defined special characteristics of human creativity, or the so-called "complex systems problem", or because AGI intrinsically requires billions of people and quadrillions of dollars, or whatever Personally I am pretty bored with all the conversations of type 2. It's not that I consider them useless discussions in a grand sense ... certainly, they are valid topics for intellectual inquiry. But, to do anything real, you have to make **some** decisions about what approach to take, and I've decided long ago to take an approach of trying to engineer an AGI system. Now, if someone had a solid argument as to why engineering an AGI system is impossible, that would be important. But that never seems to be the case. Rather, what we hear are long discussions of peoples' intuitions and opinions in this regard. People are welcome to their own intuitions and opinions, but I get really bored scanning through all these intuitions about why AGI is impossible. One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically on **how to make AGI work**. If this re-focusing were done, then philosophical arguments about the impossibility of engineering AGI in the near term would be judged **off topic** by definition of the list purpose. Potentially, there could be another list, something like "agi-philosophy", devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other discussions about whether AGI is possible or not. I am not sure whether I feel like running that other list ... and even if I ran it, I might not bother to read it very often. I'm interested in new, substantial ideas related to the in-principle possibility of AGI, but not interested at all in endless philosophical arguments over various peoples' intuitions in this regard. One fear I have is that people who are actually interested in building AGI, could be scared away from this list because of the large volume of anti-AGI philosophical discussion. Which, I add, almost never has any new content, and mainly just repeats well-known anti-AGI arguments (Penrose-like physics arguments ... "mind is too complex to engineer, it has to be evolved" ... "no one has built an AGI yet therefore it will never be done" ... etc.) What are your thoughts on this? -- Ben ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
