My analysis of the potential for the IGI is continuing. I have thought about board structure, but that is secondary just now. The main point I want to make here is how I would see such a thing operate.
The future of AGI has two main threads to it: 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) 2) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) The IGI will be the first place ever that does NC-AGI. C-AGI has had 100% of all investment and over half a century of activity. This imbalance has to stop for the good of the entire AGI program. So the idea is that NC-AGI, which was always a possibility and is now more possible than ever, joins C-AGI as a way towards real AGI, however it turns out. I cannot and will not discuss the technical conceptuals contrasting C-AGI and NC-AGI. It will be the job of the IGI to articulate that. This thread is actually about the formation of an institute that might do it. I offer the following suggestion for the scope of the IGI: 1) The IGI does actual research and development of NC-AGI. The technical mission is to make new kinds of neuromorphic chips that do model-free AGI, put them as brains in robots and make a new ecology of NC-AGI-based robot critters from insect to H+ level. 2) The IGI establishes a double-blind independent AGI test facility that _all_ embodied (robotic) AGI solutions, C-AGI and NC-AGI, can use to formally test candidates. This has nothing whatever to do with Turing tests. It will design the test regime and develop and test the tests. 3) The IGI can set about isolating and instigating the practical legal, social and regulatory mechanisms to do with having a machine ecology join (or not) the natural ecology. ========= As such, it would be ideal if the IGI could be co-located with a C-AGI institute. The two approaches, side-by side, could then work together in 2) and 3). With a board that can see the merit in such an institute, and the right researchers within it, this could be a serious contender for real AGI. At the very least it would correct an imbalance to AGI that has been in place for decades. It will champion and give a voice to NC-AGI. Currently there are, as far as I can tell, two and only two researchers in the entire world who can envisage some kind of NC-AGI. Dr Dorian Aur (Ca, USA) Dr Colin Hales.(Melbourne, Australia) If anyone knows anyone else that might see this potential then I would like to be put in touch with them. That's all I wanted to say at this stage. If I were to be part of this initiative, then these are my thoughts. I remain enthusiastic about this potential. Regards, Colin Hales. ------------------------------------------- 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
