Brad,
That's sad. The suggestion is for a mental exercise, not a full-scale
project. And play is fundamental to the human mind-and-body - it
characterises our more mental as well as more physical activities -
drawing, designing, scripting, humming and singing scat in the bath,
dreaming/daydreaming & much more. It is generally acknowledged by
psychologists to be an essential dimension of creativity - which is the goal
of AGI. It is also an essential dimension of animal behaviour and animal
evolution. Many of the smartest companies have their play areas.
But I'm not aware of any program or computer design for play - as distinct
from elaborating systematically and methodically or "genetically" on
themes - are you? In which case it would be good to think about one - it'll
open your mind & give you new perspectives.
This should be a group where people are not too frightened to play around
with ideas.
Brad:> Mike Tintner wrote: "...how would you design a play machine - a
machine
that can play around as a child does?"
I wouldn't. IMHO that's just another waste of time and effort (unless
it's being done purely for research purposes). It's a diversion of
intellectual and financial resources that those serious about building an
AGI any time in this century cannot afford. I firmly believe if we had
not set ourselves the goal of developing human-style intelligence
(embodied or not) fifty years ago, we would already have a working,
non-embodied AGI.
Turing was wrong (or at least he was wrongly interpreted). Those who
extended his imitation test to humanoid, embodied AI were even more wrong.
We *do not need embodiment* to be able to build a powerful AGI that can be
of immense utility to humanity while also surpassing human intelligence in
many ways. To be sure, we want that AGI to be empathetic with human
intelligence, but we do not need to make it equivalent (i.e., "just like
us").
I don't want to give the impression that a non-Turing intelligence will be
easy to design and build. It will probably require at least another
twenty years of "two steps forward, one step back" effort. So, if we are
going to develop a non-human-like, non-embodied AGI within the first
quarter of this century, we are going to have to "just say no" to Turing
and start to use human intelligence as an inspiration, not a destination.
Cheers,
Brad
Mike Tintner wrote:
Just a v. rough, first thought. An essential requirement of an AGI is
surely that it must be able to play - so how would you design a play
machine - a machine that can play around as a child does?
You can rewrite the brief as you choose, but my first thoughts are - it
should be able to play with
a) bricks
b)plasticine
c) handkerchiefs/ shawls
d) toys [whose function it doesn't know]
and
e) draw.
Something that should be soon obvious is that a robot will be vastly more
flexible than a computer, but if you want to do it all on computer, fine.
How will it play - manipulate things every which way?
What will be the criteria of learning - of having done something
interesting?
How do infants, IOW, play?
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by
Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
