In biological terms D came from S. If you read about the history of numbers, or abstract concepts such as money, they have a clear origin in S but eventually transcended it. Even within the D realm S terms are still used, for example "the value of the dollar is dropping like a stone", or phrases like "dead cat bounce".
2008/4/29 Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There's been a lot of argument (some of it from me, indeed) about what > type of intelligence is necessary for AGI. Let me take a shot at > resolving it. > > Suppose we say there are two types of intelligence (not in any > rigorous sense, just in broad classification): > > Deliberative. Able to prove theorems, solve the Busy Beaver problem > for small N, write and prove properties of small functions, construct > cellular automata computers for small functions, derive small > functions from specifications, notice what it's doing, accept symbolic > heuristics to improve its efficiency, think about said heuristics etc. > Symbolic intelligence that can, in some crude sense, copy some of the > things humans can symbolically do. > > Spatial. Able to perceive patterns in two or three dimensions. Can be > used, with mods, for a robot visual cortex; image recognition; given a > series of photographs of a landmark from varying viewpoints, can > derive a 3d model and backtrack that to the 2d image visible from any > other viewpoint; can pathfind units around a map in a video game; can > make much better than random guesses as to likely folds of a new > protein chain; can animate a cartoon from the description "cat sits on > mat". > > I think we should be able to agree on this: AGI should ultimately have > both Deliberative and Spatial faculties; after all, humans have both, > and there are jobs needing both, that are currently done by humans, > and many of those jobs are boring, so that humans would rather be > freed to do something more creative; so there is certainly room for AI > work in both D and S. > > So we may then disagree on which should come first. > > In biological evolution, S came first, of course. It was hard - likely > a hard step in the Great Filter - to make D on top of S. It was done, > still, and he who thinks we should try S first, then D, is not > necessarily irrational, even though I disagree with him. > > I have some outline ideas on how to make S, but not scalably, not that > would easily generalize. So I think D should come first; and I think I > now know how to make D, in a way that would hopefully then scale to S. > I do not, of course, expect anyone except me to believe those personal > claims; but they are my reasons for believing the right path is D then > S. > > Is there a consensus at least that AGI paths fall into the two > categories of D-then-S or S-then-D? > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
