On Sun., 19 Aug. 2018, 6:11 pm Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI, < [email protected]> wrote:
> Colin > > You're right, off course. My point is; if AGI would not deal with this > level of abstract, human communication of temporal, emotive states, how > would it ever be taken seriously to solve highly-abstract problems? Poets > do indeed have their say. 😉 > > Next year, I hope to be living in Panama. From a stronger base, I'm quite > certain I would then be able to start addressing the big issues in life in > terms of a pragmatic AGI application. > > For example, using AGI-tech to help understand and mitigate the unfolding, > Fukushima nuclear disaster, which is affecting the globe. There are > life-existential problems to come to grips with and find resolutions for > regarding; health, safety, food and water security, and environmental > contamination. There's more than enough work for all of us interested in > the field and no time to waste. Not all of us would be able to run away to > Mars. > > I think that is primarily where AGI development should be heading in. > > Rob > > Rob, There are eras in science history where an entire thread of a particular science works diligently and thoroughly for a very long time, and then finds itself facing a shift that renders the entire era irrelevant or misguided. AGI is one of those eras. There are hundreds of folk like yourself, that follow ideas. It's all great stuff and you never know what will result. In what you just said about your Panama plan and environmental work, you are presupposing the very things my little story questions. You presuppose that AGI science has actually started. For the reasons in the story (yes, it's all there!) AGI hasn't started yet. Instead, vast cliques of automation have been labelled AI and AGI and GAI and sometimes ASI. All valuable work. But none of it is founded on a properly formed science, with a real empirical basis. That's the problem. Everyone assumes that to pick up a computer leads, potentially, to Artificial General Intelligence. A culture born in the 'rapture' of the story. I severely challenge that presuposition in the comedy and in my book. Dressing a computer-based brain in a robot suit does not do empirical AGI. It is an elaborate form of theoretical neuroscience. All these issues are in the comedy. I am trying to get everyone to realise it. Real AGI science will only ever start when brain physics is put on the chips. It's big science, chip foundry work, and hasn't ever even been thought about until now, let alone started. So when you specify that you're heading off to do the things you say, and I'm sure you'll do good work, I'm making a case that you shouldn't be calling it AGI. And I don't just single out you. You're in great company. I mean everybody. The whole thing. Since 1956. I am trying every means at my disposal to get this message out. Nobody is working on AI. Nobody is working on AGI. Everybody is working on automation using theoretical models of the brain and calling it an artificial version of intelligence. When it's not. This mistake has only ever happened in this one place. And it could only ever happen at the birth of computers. And it did. Turning this around and correcting the science is what the story is about. At these points in science history, those that turn up with the correction to practice don't usually have a good time. I can confirm that! It's no fun at all. Also, in these periods of shift, non-standard forms of communication can help dislodge the glasses of the received view. And occasionally you get to send the whole thing up. I hope your adventures are rewarding and impactful, but just imagine if you're mistaken in calling it AGI. Just ask yourself that 'What if ....' Cheers Colin > > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc4740af26e8cd0ee-M882d8308dcf1a167814c284c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
