We already know from psychology that human intelligence is an aggregate of several amazing adaptations such as color statistics, audio source separation and denoising, internal visual simulations, single photon and single false note detection and the list goes on. Our AGI designs already include a lot of projects which involve heavy lifting, including 3D simulations.
However, as much as our AGI modules are demanding, one gets the feeling that a lot of them are tractable, for example 3D simulations indistinguishable from reality are very nearly a reality for Hollywood and could enter our AGIs in 10 to 20 years. Natural language may be more open-ended and pruning the breadth and depth of the interpretation tree after embellishing it with numerous models of humans, animals and the natural world will be certainly pushing our tech boundaries for a long time. But is there something even "nastier"? Domains as anomalous as encryption need not apply, we can (temporarily) denounce all kinds of hash collisions and NondeterministicPolynomial problems as "pure luck". But is there another category somewhere in there that is as anomalous as it is ubiquitous and therefore necessary for General Intelligence? Could the creation of mathematics be even harder? We know from everyday life that even professional mathematicians do not have the kind of fluency with their scientific objects that is required to be on the creative top of the profession, and our intelligent cultural heroes in society are constantly defining and redefining social, psychological and economic categories. We also have a backlash against our cultural heroes, positing that we would be better off without ego and id, class struggle and survival of the fittest. It will be harder to argue against the utility and validity of our maths and science, it allows us, occasionally and if we are so inclined, to extend our toolset (that an expanding toolset may lead to mutual destruction need not bother an ordinary AGI, perhaps a GodAI). Mathematics has also the curious property that it is "much more infinite" than the universe it takes place in, and therefore bigger than the rest of science (I would dare say science is smaller in the general case even if the universe incorporates infinities, for example if you can always split particles to smaller and more exotic constituents). In the same way mathematics is bigger than art, the pleasures and thrills of arts can never exceed the complexity of the small part of the cognitive apparatus that bothers if a couple of verbs or a couple of notes fit together. Any (sane) takers? 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
