So basically it appears there are 3 areas of possible AGI Test Applciations: 1. Non-Natural Language Required Tasks. - Question Answering (little comprehension) - specific programmed tasks - Most AI work, vision, sound, etc 2. Natural Language Tasks (advanced parsing and comprehension) - conversations, Turing Tests, advanced interactive tasks. 3. Embodied Tasks Either virtual or robot. movement and smart interaction with the environment, to complete tasks.
Can an AGI be built at all that first into area 1? It seems too limited to me (rough delineated definitions above granted) I think any system in one is written for a specific task, chess, maze solving, etc. So does it require 2 and/or 3 and which is better. #2 I think would qualify as an AGI, if it could talk and pass the Turing test and converse. How useful is it though, what kind of system does it create? Only expert systems for a domain, or chatbots? #3 Video game characters or robots are an AGI as well, but how limiting are they if they dont have complex language skills to be given and learn ever increasingly complex tasks to do. Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nobody came back on my suggestion for a much simpler AGI test. Let's call it the Neo-Maze Test. You program a robot rover or simulation robot with flexible rules to run fairly basic-type mazes, including mazes with multiple solutions. The test is then whether it can run very different kinds of neo-mazes (to be set by other programming teams) - let's say, mazes with holes-in-the-wall, large open squares, roundabouts, spaghetti junctions, underpasses, ramps, traffic lights and traffic problems etc. etc. - for which its rules have NOT equipped it, but which it does have the basic raw capacity to run. This will be a test of its ability to fundamentally adapt its approach to an activity to fundamentally altered environments - to adapt its rules, steps/ moves and recognized paths to its goals. That, I reckon, is the primary requirement of AGI. (Animals can do it). >From there you can move to ever more complex, and higher-level activity tests. But setting your first goal as passing a language test is to my mind absurd. P.S. Another comparable test would a Video-Game Test, where some gameplaying agent that is programmed to play something like Pac-Man, will have to adapt to fundamental variations on that game, with again radical alterations to the game's maze structure and the type of predators it must deal with, and treasures it must find. Or, thinking of the link screen on the Novamente site, you could have simply a Building Navigation Test - a robot or agent programmed to negotiate fairly simple rooms with simple furniture arrangements, and fairly simple corridors - will then have to megotiate ever more complex rooms and building corridors, ideally the full range of modern architecture. That surely would be a highly practical test with highly commercial applications. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Zahn" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [agi] The University of Phoenix Test [was: Why do you think your AGI design will work?] > Ben Goertzel writes: > >> I don't think there are any good, general incremental tests for progress >> toward >> AGI. There are just too many different potentially viable approaches, >> with >> qualitatively different development arcs. > > Nevertheless, I wish somebody would try to specify some that are perhaps > not completely general. Without that, the only way to determine whether > any > progress at all is being made is by an analysis of internal structures -- > pointing to > a data structure and making claims about its meaning. And the developers > of > the system are notoriously bad at doing this as they are too emotionally > and > intellectually tied to the work. > > I wonder at what point our ancesters became "generally intelligent"? Were > humans > of 10,000 years ago generally intelligent? If so, why did it take them so > many billions > of person-years to develop the most rudimentary capabilities that we seem > to expect > our artifical general intelligences to breeze through effortlessly? I > suppose the > real test is at what point an individual from the past would be able to > pass the Turing > test (or some similar thing) if born into our present world and educated > like we were > and I doubt any scientists could make any confident guesses about that. > > I think that figuring out a good working definition of general > intelligence and > demonstratable intermediate steps is the single most important missing > piece > of the endeavor. > > ----- > 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/?&; > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - > Release Date: 00:00 > > ----- 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/?&; _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ----- 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
