A succesful AGI should have n methods of data-mining its experience for knowledge, I think. If it should have n ways of generating those methods or n sets of ways to generate ways of generating those methods etc I don't know.
On 8/28/08, j.k. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/28/2008 04:47 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: >> The premise is that if humans can create agents with above human >> intelligence, then so can they. What I am questioning is whether agents at >> any intelligence level can do this. I don't believe that agents at any >> level can recognize higher intelligence, and therefore cannot test their >> creations. > > The premise is not necessary to arrive at greater than human > intelligence. If a human can create an agent of equal intelligence, it > will rapidly become more intelligent (in practical terms) if advances in > computing technologies continue to occur. > > An AGI with an intelligence the equivalent of a 99.9999-percentile human > might be creatable, recognizable and testable by a human (or group of > humans) of comparable intelligence. That same AGI at some later point in > time, doing nothing differently except running 31 million times faster, > will accomplish one genius-year of work every second. I would argue that > by any sensible definition of intelligence, we would have a > greater-than-human intelligence that was not created by a being of > lesser intelligence. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
