Steve: I realize that we have different understandings for many of the words that you used, so I really have little/no idea what you are thinking
Quick comment. The universal problem of understanding/communication here is that y’all approach AGI from the POV of: “how can we “scale up”/modify existing technologies to produce AGI”? This is epitomised by the concurrent thread here: “essential AGI modules.” Literally no one that I can think of – correct me – takes my POV: “what is it that an AGI must DO – its FUNCTION[s] - what kind of problems does a general intelligence solve, that distinguish it from a narrow AI”? [Only once we have a clear functional goal for AGI, can we work out what technologies are appropriate]. I have a v. clear vision of what an AGI must do, but no one here is prepared to think about that – literally people blank out, because it requires a different way of thinking – and everyone is deeply emotionally attached to the status quo of existing narrow AI technologies.. There is no question that *I* have the “right” (or best) approach – you cannot start thinking productively about the technologies of a machine-to-be-invented – are just wasting time – until you know the machine’s function[s]. “Being very very intelligent” – which is about as close as most people here get – is not an adequate definition of an AGI’s functions. : ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
