How intelligent would any human be if it couldn't be taught by other humans?
Could a human ever learn to speak by itself? The few times this has happened in real life, the person was permanently disabled and not capable of becoming a normal human being. If humans can't become human without the help of other humans, why should this is a criteria for AGI? David Clark PS I am not suggesting that explicitly programming 100% of an AGI is either doable or desirable but some degree of detailed teaching must be a requirement for all on this list who dream of creating an AGI, no? > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: March-02-08 5:36 AM > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Subject: Re: [agi] Thought experiment on informationally limited > systems > > Jeez, Will, the point of Artificial General Intelligence is that it can > start adapting to an unfamiliar situation and domain BY ITSELF. And > your > FIRST and only response to the problem you set was to say: "I'll get > someone > to tell it what to do." > > IOW you simply avoided the problem and thought only of cheating. What a > solution, or merest idea for a solution, must do is tell me how that > intelligence will start adapting by itself - will generalize from its > existing skills to cross over domains. > > Then, as my answer indicated, it may well have to seek some > instructions and > advice - especially and almost certainly if it wants to acquire a > whole new > major skill, as we do, by taking courses etc. > > But a general intelligence should be able to adapt to some unfamiliar > situations entirely by itself - like perhaps your submersible > situation. No > guarantee that it will succeed in any given situation, (as there isn't > with > us), but you should be able to demonstrate its power to adapt > sometimes. > > In a sense, you should be appalled with yourself that you didn't try to > tackle the problem - to produce a "cross-over" idea. But since > literally no > one else in the field of AGI has the slightest "cross-over" idea - i.e. > is > actually tackling the problem of AGI, - and the whole culture is one of > avoiding the problem, it's to be expected. (You disagree - show me one, > just > one, cross-over idea anywhere. Everyone will give you a v. > detailed,impressive timetable for how long it'll take them to produce > such > an idea, they just will never produce one. Frankly, they're too > scared). > > > Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> You must first define its existing skills, then define the new > challenge > >> with some degree of precision - then explain the principles by > which it > >> will > >> extend its skills. It's those principles of > extension/generalization > >> that > >> are the be-all and end-all, (and NOT btw, as you suggest, any > helpful > >> info > >> that the robot will receive - that,sir, is cheating - it has to > work > >> these > >> things out for itself - although perhaps it could *ask* for info). > >> > > > > Why is that cheating? Would you never give instructions to a child > > about what to do? Taking instuctions is something that all > > intelligences need to be able to do, but it should be attempted to be > > minimised. I'm not saying it should take instructions unquestioningly > > either, ideally it should figure out whether the instructions you > give > > are any use for it. > > > > Will Pearson > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > 724342 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
