> So far only researchers/developers who picked narrow-AI approach > accomplished something useful for AGI. > E.g.: Google, computer languages, network protocols, databases.
These are tools that are useful for AGI R&D but so are computer monitors, silicon chips, and desk chairs. Being a useful tool for AGI R&D does not make something constitute AGI R&D. I do note that I myself have done (and am doing) plenty of narrow AI work in parallel with AGI work. So I'm not arguing against narrow AI nor stating that narrow AI is irrelevant to AGI. But your view of the interrelationship seems extremely oversimplified to me. If it were as simple as you're saying, I imagine we'd have human-level AGI already, as we have loads of decent narrow-AI's for various tasks. -- Ben ----- 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=70647705-610230
