Will:Is generalising a skill logically the first thing that you need to make an AGI? Nope, the means and sufficient architecture to acquire skills and competencies are more useful early on in an agi development
Ah, you see, that's where I absolutely disagree, and a good part of why I'm hammering on the way I am. I don't think many (anyone?) will agree with David, but many if not everyone will agree with you.
Yes, the problem of generalising is the very first thing you tackle, and should shape everything you do - at least once you have moved beyond idle thought to serious engagement.
If you're trying to develop a new electric battery, you look for that new chemical first (assuming that's what you reckon you'll need) - you don't start looking at the casing or other aspects of the battery. Anything peripheral you do first may be rendered totally irrelevant later on when you do discover that chemical and a total waste of time.
And such, I'm sure, is the case with AGI. That central problem of generalising demands a total new mentality - a sea-change of approach.
(You saw an example in my exchange with YKY. I think - in fact, I'm just about totally certain - that generalising demands a system of open-ended concepts like ours. Because he isn't directly concerned with the generalising problem, he wants a closed-ended, unambiguous language - which is in fact only suitable for narrow AI and, I would argue, a waste of time).
P.S. It's a bit sad - you started this thread with a generalising problem, now you're backtracking on it.
------------------------------------------- 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
