Benjamin, > Nearly any AGI component can be used within a narrow AI,
That proves my point [that AGI project can be successfully split into smaller narrow AI subprojects], right? > but, the problem is, it's usually a bunch easier to make narrow AI's > using components that don't have any AGI value... I agree, that many narrow AI projects are not very useful for future AGI project. Still, AGI-oriented researcher can pick appropriate narrow AI projects in a such way that: 1) Narrow AI project will be considerably less complex than full AGI project. 2) Narrow AI project will be useful by itself. 3) Narrow AI project will be an important building block for the full AGI project. Would you agree that splitting very complex and big project into meaningful parts considerably improves chances of success? > Another way to go -- use existing narrow AIs as prototypes when > building AGI. That's right. The problem is -- there is not enough narrow AIs at this point to assemble AGI in any reasonable amount of time. I consider anything longer than 3 years -- unreasonable [and almost guaranteed failure]. > I don't really accept any narrow-AI as a prototype for an AGI. Ok. How about set of narrow-AIs that cover different functionality of AGI. Would it be a good prototype? In any case, narrow AI prototype[s] is better, than no prototype, right? > I think there is loads of evidence that narrow-AI prowess does not imply > AGI prowess, All other things being equal -- would you invest into researcher who successfully developed narrow AI or into researcher who did not? :-) ----- 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=69274200-4fc0e0
