Charles: >> I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out
of
narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add-on.
Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably "narrow AI"
(well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition,
e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't
prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence
component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001
of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less.
>
John: I agree that it may be <1%. >
Oh boy, does this strike me as absurd. Don't have time for the theory right
now, but just had to vent. Percentage estimates strike me as a bit silly,
but if you want to aim for one, why not look at both your paragraphs, word
by word. "Don't" "think" "might" "relatively" etc. Now which of those words
can only be applied to a single type of activity, rather than an open-ended
set of activities? Which cannot be instantiated in an open-ended if not
infinite set of ways? Which is not a very valuable if not key tool of a
General Intelligence, that can adapt to solve problems across domains?
Language IOW is the central (but not essential) instrument of human general
intelligence - and I can't think offhand of a single world that is not a
tool for generalising across domains, including "Charles H." and "John G.".
In fact, every tool you guys use - logic, maths etc. - is similarly general
and functions in similar ways. The above strikes me as a 99% failure to
understand the nature of general intelligence.
-------------------------------------------
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=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
