Notice that I didn't use the word "intelligence" -- the key issue here is when we can expect the existence of AGI to make a significant difference in the world. Computers have had a big impact because they have abilities well beyond those of humans in certain limited areas. Of course, so did steam shovels.
The key issue is ability, and it assumes a context that specifies what kind of ability we're talking about. For AGIs it would be those abilities that currently remain exclusive to humans. We live in a world whose parameters are largely couched in those terms -- for better or worse. That won't be true 50 years from now, for the first time in history. At that point it would make sense to come up with a new scale. Josh On Wednesday 09 May 2007 11:44, Panu Horsmalahti wrote: > I don't think intelligence can be measured that easily on a one dimensional > axis, with a dot marking the intelligence of "humans". If you look at all > the possible intelligences, not just the organic ones we know of, measuring > intelligence becomes extremely difficult. Measuring the intelligence of > humans has been difficult in the past and so far we pretty much only have > IQ (meaning logical tasks) test. Many have opposed this, saying that > intelligence (in humans) is really something more than simple logic. > Emotional intelligence,etc. If measuring the intelligence in VERY SIMILAR > systems (compared to the vast 'mind design space') is difficult, then > measuring all intelligences must be near impossible (unless someone can > pull out that magic definition of intelligence). It also seems *very* > human-centric to compare everything to humans.. > > Maybe measuring intelligence is like measuring how good a tool is. It > depends on what you need it for. > > 2007/5/9, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In Beyond AI I have a taxonomy (and Kurzweil picked that chapter, among > > others, to post on his site). in brief: > > > > Hypohuman AI -- below human ability and under human control > > Diahuman AI -- somewhere in the human range (which is large!) > > Epihuman AI -- smarter/more capable than human, but equivalent to a > > moderate-sized company (of very smart people) > > Hyperhuman AI -- equivalent to or better than all humans working in a > > given > > subject area > > > > and two involving a design stance rather than a capability level > > > > Parahuman AI -- designed to work alongside humans and relate > > Allohuman AI -- optimized for other things in ways that humans have a > > harder > > time relating to > > > > Josh > > > > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 06:14, John G. Rose wrote: > > > Is there a standard taxonomy of AGI that is referred to when talking > > > > about > > > > > different AGIs or near AGIs? Saying that a software is an AGI or not > > > an AGI is not descriptive enough. There are probably very few AGIs but > > > > many > > > > > close AGIs and then many, many AIs. Software programs are like the > > > > plant > > > > > and animal kingdom since they breed and multiply and evolve... > > > > > > John > > > > > > ----- > > > 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/?&; > > ----- > 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
