RE: [agi] Google as a strong AI

[Ben Goertzel]

Paul,   Note that I don't begrudge Google the label "AI" --  IMO it's just as much AI as most of the stuff in Russel & Norvig (the classic AI text).  I just begrudge it the title "AGI" ;-) ... Of course, I realize that with finite processing power there is no truly general intelligence.  But there are levels of generality in intelligence, and Google's is quite low.   Next, your message seems to imply that commercial success or popularity are a decent measure of scientific or engineering quality or interestingness.  This is just not the case, as is shown by very many examples in recent and less recent history.   Finally, you suggest that an in-development AGI should necessarily have powerful applications -- e.g. that a 60%-complete AGI implementation should be 60% as useful as a complete AGI.   It's just not true.  There are plenty of other areas of science and engineering where this kind of "continuity" doesn't hold either.  A 60%-complete spacecraft doesn't fly anywhere, and probably has very little commercial value   -- so what?    -- Ben   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Paul Fidika Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:19 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Google as a strong AI Ben Goertzel wrote: >Cyc, SOAR and Novamente are all closer to strong AI than Google, since >they can carry out a greater variety of intelligence-like functions.   Last I checked, Google is used by 100 million people daily, while, to the best of my knowledge, neither Cyc nor SOAR have seen more than two or three applications outside of the "Blocks-world", while your Novamente project, under your own admission, is under rather tight financial straights at the moment, so much so that you've had to start asking for donations to have the spare time to do some "pure AGI" work... (Don't you think a 60%-complete human-level intelligence should be capable of doing SOMETHING somone would pay good money for?) If Cyc, SOAR, or Novamente posses even a fraction of the "variety of intelligence-like functions" that you seem to think they do, then where are their promised killer-apps?   Eugen Leitl wrote: >To my best knowledge (which is not much) Google currently doesn't utilize >any advanced algorithms which could (however tenuously) be termed AI.   If SHRDLU, ELIZA, or any of the various silly little programs Hofstadter has ever written receive the title of "AI", why do you insist on begrudging Google the title?   Paul Fidika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]