On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that > no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like > Google etc.) are going to achieve general intelligence at the human level or > anywhere near. I think you need an AGI architecture & approach that is > fundamentally different from narrow-AI approaches... > > Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be > built. I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the human level, beyond, or anywhere near... > > > Also, what do you mean by "human level intelligence"? What test do you use? > My calculator already surpasses human level intelligence depending on the > tests I give it. Yes, and my dog surpasses human level intelligence at finding poop in a grassy field ... so what?? ;-) If I need to specify a test right now I'll just use the standard IQ tests as a reference, or else the Turing Test But I don't think these tests are ideal by any means... One of the items on my list for this fall is the articulation of a clear set of metrics for evaluating developing, learning AGI systems as they move toward human-level AI ... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
