A general theory of intelligence will not give us a detailed AGI design, but it will provide the assumptions and restrictions that such a design should follow, no matter how the implementation details are determined. Also, it will tell us why the traditional AI approaches failed. For these reasons, it is not trivial or vacuum.
Pei On 4/15/07, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/16/07, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to my belief, the way to create AGI is to have a general > theory of intelligence, which should cover the common principle under > all kinds of intelligent systems, including human intelligence, > computer intelligence, etc., even alien intelligence and superhuman > AGI. Therefore, this theory should also cover your AGI0 to AGIn. Indeed we do have some such theories already. Thing is, any theory which covers such different things must necessarily say very little about any of them in particular. To again make use of the flight analogy, is there a theory that covers both a bird and an F-22? Well yes, aerodynamics. However, if you look at what you actually need to know to design an F-22, aerodynamics is only the tiniest fraction of it. You need to know (or the team collectively needs to know - it's too much for any one person) a vast amount about engines and fuels, metallurgy, electronics, manufacturability, operational procedures and a hundred other things I don't even know enough to list - all of which are peculiar to man-made aircraft and do not apply to birds. Nor is this state of affairs peculiar to flight - it applies to every complex artifact. It undoubtedly also applies to AGI. ________________________________ 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
