I agree with Pei Wang 100% on this point. Even though I find many of the comments from Mike to be interesting, I think it would be much more productive to add to the solutions and problems of creating a computer based AGI rather than trying to convince the converted that AGI on today's computers is impossible. Some problems might be solved by visual techniques but if this is important then that aspect of the problem will probably have to wait until the more general problems of object extraction from video images is further along (from Bob Mottram's comments).
Most of the people on this list have quite different ideas about how an AGI should be made BUT I think there are a few things that most, if not all agree on. 1. Intelligence can be created by using computers that exist today using software. 2. Physical embodiment of the software is not essential (might be desirable) for intelligence to be created. 3. Intelligence hasn't yet been reached in anyone's AGI project. It is not possible to *prove* any AGI project to be correct until it is actually an AGI and this list won't matter much when that happens. The only way to find out if a particular AGI approach is actually a good one is to try and create it. It will be difficult to identify even the right projects when they appear because the AGI will inevitably have some capabilities far beyond a humans' and other abilities that are far less. Even if a project gets some level of intelligence with a particular approach, that doesn't mean that that approach will continue to produce even higher levels of intelligence or get to the AGI level (whatever that is). Therefore, all current AGI projects have to be fundamentally based on intuition or faith or both. No argument there, but it would seem that there is no other way to get to creating an AGI when none currently exists. It is just a waste of time to demand that someone or some group produce proof that their ideas are correct when that proof is impossible to produce until an AGI is achieved. That doesn't mean we can't debate the merits of different approaches, or demonstrate why previous attempts weren't successful. The last point being very difficult because many things could result in the failure of a project including scale, resources, etc. Just because some previous approach didn't work, doesn't necessarily mean that that approach couldn't work if some other variable was changed. I believe that a paraplegic person can still be intelligent and useful if they could just type on a keyboard and use their brain. This doesn't *prove* that human intelligence can be created without a body in the first place but I think it shows that roaming around in the world and getting firsthand knowledge from a person's senses isn't a 100% prerequisite for intelligence. I would appreciate more comments on how to achieve an AGI and less on whether a AGI on computers using software is possible or not. David Clark > -----Original Message----- > From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: February-14-08 5:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] reasoning & knowledge.. p.s. > > You are correct that MOST PEOPLE in AI treat observation/perception as > pure passive. As on many topics, most people in AI are probably wrong. > However, you keep making claim on "everyone", "nobody", ..., which is > almost never true. If this is your way to get people to reply your > email, it won't work on me anymore. > > There are many open problems in AI, so it is not hard to find one that > haven't been solved. If you have an idea about how to solve it, then > work on it and show us how far you can go. Just saying "Nobody has > idea about how to ..." contribute little to the field, since that > problem typically has been raised decades ago. > > Pei > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
