Matt, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]> wrote:
> What I'm asking is the objective of the test. Is it to convince the judge > that you are a computer? > No, that would be very easy, be very easy, be very easy, be very easy, STACK OVERFLOW. Presuming that you are SOMETHING that has advanced wisdom, *your* objective as a participant/team is to display your wisdom sufficiently to outdo your opponents, and in the process impart some of your wisdom to the judges and audience. The objective of the competition is to uncover presently hidden challenges that lie ahead, e.g. is it even possible to explain to people that sometimes it is what they value the most that is the very PROBLEM they wish to overcome. I suspect that AGIs will be SEVERELY limited by the very limited mentalities (us) that they will have to work with. Also, I suspect that at some/most of what people expect from AGIs can be had by organized teams of really smart people, thereby obviating the need for smart hardware. In any case, we have been kicking around opinions on these and related subjects on this forum ever since the forum first started, and at least some of the answers can be had WITHOUT writing a single line of code - and we can have fun in the process. Would you like to be a participant, or judge? I would have a difficult time choosing, because both sound like fun. Steve =================== On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, > > Just because there are no (known) non-biological AGIs doesn't mean that we > can't run a competition for the biological variety. Just set it up so that > all participants are welcomed, regardless of their technology. > > Continuing... > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Could you explain the rules? >> > > The "rules" don't yet exist and would be established by the those > operating the future competition. Of course, an AGI would view "rules" to > be advisory and perceive itself free to "violate" them in creative ways > that work to the AGI's perceived interests. > > My thought was that the judge(s) would present a small number (2-3) > present social or scientific challenges in textual form, that might be > reasonable for a super-duper AGI to resolve, and see what the participating > people and/or teams come back with regarding their individual selections of > a smaller number (1-2) of those challenges. > > Scoring might be for the best of the poorest answers, but I suspect that > there may be other opinions about this. > > Any "ties" would be resolved in favor of the AGI that best followed the > rules. > > There would probably have to be a length limit, say 10 pages total, > because of the need to explain concepts that are NOT now commonly known. > > Early AGIs would be compute-bound, so several days would be allowed to > answer such world-changing questions. > > Thoughts? > > Steve > ====================== > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Steve Richfield via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It seems obvious (to) me that any envisioned super duper AGI of the >> future would be easily able to win a reverse Turing competition - >> demonstrating with advanced logical solutions to difficult problems that it >> is a machine and NOT merely human. >> >> To see how such an AGI might function, and how its responses might be >> perceived by mere humans, it seems (to me) VERY interesting to see what >> might come from such a competition, even though (for now) it only includes >> teams of mere humans. >> >> I suspect that heidenbugs (correct functionality that is seen to be >> erroneous) and incorrectly perceived sinister intent would make it nearly >> impossible for mere humans to accurately judge such a competition. If so, >> this would seem to doom the future utility of AGIs. >> >> As with Winograd schemas, the test is in the doing. Every your or so I >> post looking for others interesting in operating and/or participating in a >> reverse Turing competition. >> >> Any interest? >> >> Steve >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/3701026-786a0853> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
