I'm told it's due at 11:11am UTC tomorrow. This should be fun... :)
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:30 AM, A. T. Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > Brett Ward wrote: > > > >Hi All, > > > >It's been more than a couple of decades now that I've believed AGI is > >just around the corner. I've begun to explore the 'negative'. Here's > >some of my thought experiment, a bit of fun ; ) > > > >1) We don't know what General Intelligence really 'is'. The definition > >of intelligence is a blurry concept. Are the definitions that we have > >now as accurate as what Dalton had for the atom? How much detail is > >required before it can be built? > > > >2) Even Human Intelligence could be defined as 'Narrow'. Can any random > >human baby be trained to be both a concert pianist and a theoretical > >physicist? Perhaps narrow A.I. will gradually expand to cover our needs, > >without ever needing to become 'general'. There was a profession of > >'human computer' which I guess is one of the first to be replaced by > >very narrow 'intelligence'. > > > >3) A 'soul' is required before intelligence can be obtained. Those > >without religious beliefs, feel free to replace 'soul' with > >'unknown/uncompromisable part' (perhaps parallel quantum reactions with > >other dimensions). Consider a chimpanzee with the belief that it can > >build a boat, except all its efforts are put towards shaping clay to > >look like a water bird. > > > >4) Human genetics/evolution play an 'unobtainable' part in general > >intelligence. A significant proportion of human behavior is set by > >genetics (reference identical twin studies). The beginnings of language > >have a genetic beginning ('ma' and 'da' appear as parental names across > >different languages). Perhaps the 'fine tuning' performed by evolution > >is not obtainable in an artificial manner? > > > >5) Mental stability. People aren't stable. Individuals commit suicide, > >groups cluster and wage wars. If this stability is an integral part of > >general intelligence, perhaps it's not achievable with our level of > >understanding/technology. > > > >6) Effectiveness. Alchemists believed that they could make themselves > >rich converting lead into gold. The materials were very similar, but the > >techniques attempted were mostly futile (but did spin off some other > >nice discoveries). It is possible to perform this transmutation, but the > >process is not economically viable. By the time we have the > >understanding to create general intelligence, we'll have other > >technology (maybe brain enhancement implants) that are far more effective? > > > >What are your 'beliefs'? > > I believe a Singularity is due tomorrow on Fri.21.DEC.2012, > but I'm not sure just what time of day :-) > > Today before breakfast I have been coding my AGI at > > http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt > > and I have just uploaded it to the Web > even though it is still kind of rough and imperfect, > because for the first time it introduces the > > http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/InFerence > > module for machine reasoning. > > Thanks for posting your musings, Brett. > > Mentifex (Arthur) > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
