John, You're making a massively important point, wh. I have been thinking about recently.
I think it's more useful to say that AGI-ers are thinking in terms of building a *complete AGI system* (rather than person) wh. could range from a simple animal robot to fantasies of an all intelligent brain-in-a-box. No AGI-er has (and no team of supercreative AGI-ers could have) even a remotely realistic understanding of how massively complex a feat this would be. I've changed recently to thinking that realistic AGI in the near future will have to concentrate instead (or certainly have one major focus) on what might be called "local AGI" as opposed to "global AGI" - getting a robot able to do just *one* or two things in a truly general way - with a very well-defined goal - rather than a true all-round AGI robot system. (more of this another time). Look at Venter - he is not trying to build a complete artificial cell in one - that would be insane, and yet not a tiny fraction of the insanity of present AGI systembuilders' goals. He is taking it one narrow step at a time - one relatively narrow part at a time. That is a law of both natural and machine evolution to wh. I don't think there are any exceptions - from simple to complex in gradual, progressive stages. From: John G. Rose Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:20 PM To: agi Subject: RE: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman I think some confusion occurs where AGI researchers want to build an artificial person verses artificial general intelligence. An AGI might be just a computational model running in software that can solve problems across domains. An artificial person would be much else in addition to AGI. With intelligence engineering and other engineering that artificial person could be built, or some interface where it appears to be a person. And a huge benefit is in having artificial people to do things that real people do. But pursuing AGI need not have to be pursuit of building artificial people. Also, an AGI need not have to be able to solve ALL problems initially. Coming out and asking why some AGI theory wouldn't be able to figure out how to solve some problem like say, world hunger, I mean WTF is that? John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:33 AM To: agi Subject: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman "One of the problems of AI researchers is that too often they start off with an inadequate understanding of the problems and believe that solutions are only a few years away. We need an educational system that not only teaches techniques and solutions, but also an understanding of problems and their difficulty - which can come from a broader multi-disciplinary education. That could speed up progress." A. Sloman (& who else keeps saying that?) agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
