I actually like the "University of Phoenix" test for AGI. Of course, all you really need to do is pass the exams. We have already done that with the word analogies section of the SAT. (Maybe that is why they removed it).
--- Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I also don't think you will recognize AGI. You have never seen examples > > of > > it. Earlier I posted examples of Google passing the Turing test, but > > nobody > > believes that is AGI. If nothing is ever labeled AGI, then nothing ever > > will > > be. > > > > Google does not pass the Turing test. Giving human-like responses for a > small > subset of possible queries is not passing the Turing test. > > If a software program logged onto this mailing list and participated in the > conversation in > a manner qualitatively very similar to how you and I are now doing, nearly > everyone on the list would categorize the program as possessing general > intelligence. In spite of the lack of a rigorous definition. > > If you want a simple pragmatic test for advanced AGI, how about this: If a > software program can > get an online college degree (all communication from the AI is textual and > online; > exams are given via the Web, etc.) then we consider it has human-level > general > intelligence. > > Since exams are made newly each semester by professors, this requires the > program to understand the material rather than just memorizing some fixed > set of knowledge. > > Distribution requirements mean that the AGI must master a number of > different > skills (math, writing, critical thinking, etc.). Also, some classes require > intelligent conversation with the prof and other students, though there is > not > any requirement for flawless humanlike English communication: the AI should > be able to pass even if it admits it's an AI. > > Let's call this the "University of Phoenix" test. > > Does anyone have an argument against this test for AGI? Clearly it is > a sufficient but not necessary condition for human-level AGI, just like the > Turing test. > > What I like about it however (as compared to the Turing test) is that it > does not > require deception or imitation on the AGI's part. Also it does not require > robotic > embodiment, though AGIs may of course learn information useful for passing > the test via robotic embodiment. > > -- Ben G > > ----- > 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/?&; -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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
