Ben: If scientists were banned from proceeding based on intuition, until they had convinced skeptics of their methodology and ideas, nearly all science would halt...
The two obvious prerequisites for starting – getting serious about - any inventive project, are 1) an **operational definition**: you must be able to explain what your machine will do - in this case: what AGI problems will it solve, (and how will it diversify into solving more AGI prob lems) 2) a **proof of concept** – you must be able to give a practical reason why your project will work – in this case how your project will solve AGI problems. For example, Gutenberg might have said: “I think a press like a wine-press will also work with print seals. If it can press grapes down, it can press other objects down.,” That’s all you need for a proof of concept – because you can see that a press is capable of pressing things down. People may and will argue against that “proof” : “maybe it’ll smudge ink, maybe the seals won’t hold in place, maybe the press will be too slow or break down”. But you can also see that it *might* work. So go ahead, Gutenberg. OTOH, if there is no proof of concept: it’s “back to the drawing board.” until you can come up with one. No one in AGI has either an operational definition or a proof of concept. Utterly incredible – and a unique annal in the history of technological creativity - but true. (Perhaps it’s a genetic deficiency or something ). ------------------------------------------- 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
<<wlEmoticon-smile[1].png>>
