A banker, a physicist, a computer scientist, a historian, an estate agent or an actor?
All these people might be very good in their own job but could fail if they had to do something else. A good physicist is not necessarily a good historian and vice versa. I mean, that even homo sapiens might be less intelligent than the robot some people imagine when they think about AGI. The airplane has been a good example. The intelligence of a single human being usually is not sufficient to build an airplane. Only a large group of people might be intelligent enough to do this. And even this group will need machines to amplify their intelligence (A human being with a calculator is more intelligent than the same person without the calculator). I understand that programs which do chess we will probably never reach AGI. But the step from chess-like AI to AGI which is AT LEAST human-level AI is too big. We would have already solved very difficult problems of AI if we 'only' could build an artificial cat. I do not think, that a cat would be narrow AI. I am not sure whether it is the right way to go from very narrow chess-like AI to super-human level AGI in only one step. ------ --- On Sat, 6/14/08, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Which animal has the smallest level of intelligence which still would be sufficient for a robot to be an AGI-robot? Homo Sapiens, according to Turing's definition of intelligence. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
