William Pearson wrote:
My current thinking is that it will take lots of effort by multiple
people, to take a concept or prototype AGI and turn into something
that is useful in the real world. And even one or two people worked on
the correct concept for their whole lives it may not produce the full
thing, they may hit bottle necks in their thinking or lack the proper
expertise to build the hardware needed to make it run in anything like
real time. Building up a community seems the only rational way
forward.
So how should we go about trying to convince each other we have
reasonable concepts that deserve to be tried? I can't answer that
question as I am quite bad at convincing others of the interestingness
of my work. So I'm wondering what experiments, theories or
demonstrations would convince you that someone else was onto
something?
For me an approach should have the following feature:
1) The theory not completely divorced from brains
It doesn't have to describe everything about human brains, but you can
see how roughly a similar sort of system to it may be running in the
human brain and can account for things such as motivation, neural
plasticity.
2) It takes some note of theoretical computer science
So nothing that ignores limits to collecting information from the
environment or promises unlimited bug free creation/alteration of
programming.
3) A reason why it is different from normal computers/programs
How it deals with meaning and other things. If it could explain
conciousness in some fashion, I would have to abandon my own theories
as well.
I'm sure there are other criteria I have as well, but those three are
the most obvious. As you can see I'm not too interested in practical
results right at the moment. But what about everyone else?
Will Pearson
Are you asking what it would take for someone else to convince me to put
my weight behind their approach?
For me, the first item on the list would be:
1) Does their approach show some understanding of the Complex Systems
Problem? And if so, can they show that they are addressing it in a
believable way, rather than just pretending that it isn't really a
problem? If they cannot do this, then their approach would just be more
arbitrary hacking built on guesswork, and I might have a great deal of
trouble supporting it.
The other points you raise are all valid, too.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
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
