Jiri, > AGI is IMO possible now but requires very different approach than narrow AI.
AGI requires properly tune some existing narrow AI technologies, combine them together and may be add couple of more. That's massive amount of work, but most AGI research and development can be shared with narrow AI research and development. >> It would. "More full time AGI folks" means less full time folks on >> other important projects. > IMO worth it. That's up to investors to decide. Currently I don't think it's wise to invest my time and/or money into AGI directly. Narrow AI projects [whose results can be used in AGI later] are better target for investments. >> > There are many hard problems to solve, including some which, if not >> > solved correctly in relatively near future, could cause the money >> > (made on those "better paying tasks") having only a fraction of its >> > current value. > Problems that require hard-to-do evaluation of larger amounts of data > from different domains before important decision deadlines. We could > use narrow AI to do everything the AGI could do - except - we cannot > always do it fast enough - which costs lives and/or unnecessary > suffering you can see all around the world. You description of the problems does not qualify for: "could cause the money having only a fraction of its current value." Could you give an example of such problem? ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=67469218-948255
