Joshua Fox wrote:
What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI
research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off,
surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years,
impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human
cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and
imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of
some philosophically very important problems."
It seems to me the reason for this lack of activity is a lack of
credible lines of research, other than continuing existing narrow AI and
cognitive science work, hopefully with extra efforts to encourage
cross-pollination.
A list of ideas for what academia should be doing, other than giving
people million dollar grants for programming systems they cannot make a
good case will do anything interesting might help, I list a few off the
top of my head below, feel free to revise my list:
tractable subcases of bayesian/KC/decision theory methods, as pursued by
Marcus Hutter
Reflectivity in bayesian/KC/decision theory methods, as pursued by
Eliezer Yudkowsky
Dynamics of concepts, Douglas Hofstadter
Brain simulation, blue brain project
Common sense reasoning
AI intelligence tests, Shane Legg
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
