Colin Hales wrote:
Meanwhile, the actual science of artificial general intelligence
languishes, intended, malformed and impotent. Those of us that
actually want to do the real science of an artificial version of
natural general intelligence ... have to stand back and watch.
I've been deeply immersed in this full time for nearly 20 years. The
most impressive thing about the discourse: the amount of progress in a
real science of AGI is effectively zero. The same arguments
rediscovered and re-expressed over and over.
Nowhere else in science would any test relying on observer heresay as
scientific evidence be treated as anything more than a parody to
demonstrate and train people to recognise bad science when you see it.
Why can't the science of AGI?? just dump the Turing test and move on?
Whatever's going on in tech at the moment, it's not AI, general or
otherwise. It's only automation based on models of natural
intelligence. Actual AI hasn't actually started yet.
Waiting another 20 years for a broken science to realise it is broken
is getting real old
+1
--
Please report bounces from this address to [email protected]
Powers are not rights.
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf97c751029c2e4db-Mb77c79c58b70840421c13cb9
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
