Okay, there have been a lot of responses - thank you to all! > I don't mean to be critical but AGI is a really hard problem which no > individual on this list has the resources to solve. Google, Amazon, Apple, > Facebook, and Microsoft have made some progress, but these are companies with > trillion dollar market caps. A human brain sized neural network needs 10 to > 20 petaflops and a petabyte of RAM. Our software, encoded in DNA, is > equivalent to 300 million lines, or $30 billion. And then you have to train > it on an exabyte of video. > > But this approach doesn't even make sense. Our whole economy is based on job > specialization. It is far more efficient to organize machines like we > organize people, each doing a specific task. Everyone making progress in AI > is doing narrow AI, and really this is the only practical approach. Instead > of trying to automate a million different jobs all at once, you'll have more > success automating one job. That's going to be hard enough, given that all > the low hanging fruit has been picked.
Indeed, hardware might be a limitation for another decade or two. I think the advantage big companies have is especially of horizontal scaling; at the end of the day, somebody has to "scale vertically", study all the relevant aspects and put together the framework. If no one does, the resulting system would be a mess, no one would "understand" it - and therefore, trusting it would be risky. I mean, someone articulated that what'd be fearsome is not an AI system coming alive, but the AI system optimizing a very specific goal - say, optimizing paper-clip production. Despite all things, a quest to understand human intelligence stays alive. I'd hope I don't rest my livelihood on this. But this is, indeed, something I'd enjoy working if I did not have any concerns about finance. Ultimately, we want a system, to which we can "upload ourselves", for, say, space travel(?). Thank you Peter for all those links; I'll have a go through them some time. > and an overall index > https://medium.com/@petervoss/my-ai-articles-f154c5adfd37 > You might take a look at Pei Wang's NARS system; an 'Open NARS' system is available. There are actually a ton of ideas and implementations: Artificial General Intelligence (Cognitive Technologies) <https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-General-Intelligence-Cognitive-Technologies/dp/354023733X> is a good reference I think. However, I can only try one or two of them at one time, without freezing by analysis; so long as a community exists around some work (I don't want to work in a void), I'd be willing to try it out. @keghnfeem, please do implement the theories; hardly anyone would have time to look at theories alone - a (working) implementation seems more efficient in a community sense - like, since none of us is a God (or some perfect being), we are all fallible - if the implementation of the theory doesn't work, the time of all reviewers would be wasted, especially when all of the reviewers have their own ideas about how things could be and would want to test their own theories out before testing others'. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7116d9f5c1f0551d-M806f47fb09a6e5a84d807322 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
