--- Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt: I realize that a > full (Turing test) model can only be learned by having a full range of human > experiences in a human body. > > Pray expand. I thought v. few here think that. Your definition seems to > imply AGI must inevitably be embodied. It also implies an evolutionary > model of embodied AGI - - a lower intelligence animal-level model will have > to have a proportionately lower agility animal body. It also prompts the v. > interesting speculation - (and has it ever been discussed on either > forum?) - of what kind of superbody a superagi would have to have? (I would > personally find *that* area of future speculation interesting if not super). > > Thoughts there too? No superhero fans around?
A superagi would have billions of sensors and actuators all over the world -- keyboards, cameras, microphones, speakers, display devices, robotic manipulators, direct brain interfaces, etc. My claim is that an ideal language model (not AGI) requires human embodiment. But we don't need -- or want -- an ideal model. Turing realized that passing the imitation game requires duplicating human weaknesses as well as strengths. From his famous 1950 paper: Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge. A: Count me out on this one. I never could write poetry. Q: Add 34957 to 70764. A: (Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621. Q: Do you play chess? A: Yes. Q: I have K at my K1, and no other pieces. You have only K at K6 and R at R1. It is your move. What do you play? A: (After a pause of 15 seconds) R-R8 mate. Why would we want to do that? We can do better. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=94603346-a08d2f
