On 4/15/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pei, A key point is that, unlike a human, a well-architected AGI should be able to easily increase its intelligence via adding memory, adding faster processors, adding more processors, and so forth. As well as by analyzing its own processes and their flaws with far more accuracy than any near-term brain scan...
Sure, these factors will increase the system's capability, though not change its working principle.
However, to say "intelligence will continue to > evolve" and "there will be a moment after which things will completely > go beyond our understanding" are not the same. True, they're not the same.... It is a reasonable hypothesis that AGIs created by humans will find themselves unable -- even after a lot of self-study and a lot of hardware improvement augmentation -- to dramatically transcend the human level of intelligence. I.e., the idea of human-created algorithms bootstrapping beyond the human level could be infeasible. This seems highly unlikely to me, but I can't see it's an idiotic hypothesis. Is the above the hypothesis you're making?
Not exactly. My points are: (1) AGI can be more intelligent than human in certain sense, but it should still be understandable in principle. (2) Intelligence in AGI will continue to improve, both by human and by AGI, but it will still take time. There is no reason to believe that the time will be infinitely short.
Or are you doubting that a massively superhuman intelligence would be beyond the scope of understanding of ordinary, unaugmented humans?
It depends on what you mean by "understanding" --- the general principle or concrete behaviors. Pei
Ben ________________________________ 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/?&;
----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
