On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM, David Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. I believe that AGI can be created using software we have today, on > computers that exist today. AGI has not been created yet so I have no proof > that this is true, even though I am acting as if it is. > > 2. I believe that AGI can’t move forward until programs have the > unlimited ability to create other programs. This hasn’t happened yet and > therefore I have no proof that this capability will be more successful than > current approaches BUT at least it isn’t one of the techniques that we know > doesn’t work. > > I am acting as if these 2 beliefs were true while I have no proof they are. > Guilty as charged. > > If people on this list don’t also believe my first assumption, I don’t > understand why they would be on this list! Minsky and Kurzweil are not on this list. When this list was formed, there were several people who were working on AGI projects. All but Ben have left. > I have many arguments that point to my second assumption being correct but no > proof. The BASIC interpreter on my Commodore 64 had self-modifying code. It is an interesting concept, but not new. More importantly, it does not address the high cost of AGI in hardware, software, and training data. I do not believe (1). Computers today have nowhere near the computing capacity of the human brain with respect to neural models of vision, language, and robotics. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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
