On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]> wrote: > The general mistake here, is that everybody is thinking that "I, ME, MYSELF" > must do it. Discover physical dimensions, answer questions about vision, > interactions, etc. That's not AGI, that's more of I, me, myself.
Me myself and I are concerned with the exact opposite of your depiction. First, we are looking for the minimal complexity that can bootstrap itself. Second, we are concerned with the "humanity" of the intelligence, from a human point of view it is not OK to answer problems after 10 million years, or by outputting 1trillion symbols, in whatever language. Third, we are looking for efficient architectures, even if we have answered the first problem it would be extremely nice to have all kinds of shortcuts in place, eg needing 100TB of storage instead of 100XB. Fourth, it is hard for us to remember four objectives, which is one of the many reasons we need intelligent machines. Certainly a half-AGI and half-spiritual interest of mine is to investigate the very implications of the human "hardwiring", whether it is about issues of free will, agency, qualia, socially distributed knowledge and skills etc. Or, it would be nice if someone had an idea about those 3 dimensions! AT ------------------------------------------- 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
