Then why does he give Watson as his only example of progress? There is not the slightest element of AGI progress – there is no program that can be generative – that can “learn and generalize beyond its original domain” per you. Any discussions or predictions of AGI have to *start* from an explanation of that fact. None do. From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:07 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Kurzweil irrelevant
Actually Ray does understand AGI pretty well, and he understands that Watson, internally, is architected differently from an AGI ... and he understands that Watson, unlike an AGI, cannot learn and generalize beyond its original domain However, he believes that the technological infrastructure needed to create a Watson, has a lot of overlap with that needed to create an AGI. And he is right about that... -- Ben G On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Q: How do you gauge if strong A.I. is a few years away? K: Developments such as Watson should give us confidence that we are on track. So we know for sure that he doesn’t understand AGI – and his Singularity is equally baseless. AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
