On 2012/09/12, at 21:43, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:31 PM, ARAKAWA Naoya <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 2012/09/12, at 0:19, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> AT:Well, let's just say that one of my working hypotheses is that "seeing" >>> may be too little for AGI. >>> >>> Well, the question is - why does an agent need sight anyway? >>> We don't understand (*are* there any theories?) at what point an agent >>> needs sight. >> >> An agent doesn't need sight (until a particular task requires it). >> There are many blind people conducting independent lives. > > When you do a Google search for "funny videos", the results should > ideally be ranked by a program that judges the humor content of > videos. This is something that humans can do. Is there any reason that > AGI should not have this capability?
Of course there isn't. I wrote an agent 'doesn't need' sight but didn't write 'should not have'. -- Naoya A. ------------------------------------------- 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
