--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>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... Well, keep in mind that I am not trying to build a human-like AGI with its own goals. I am designing a distributed system with billions of owners, each of whom has their own interests and (conflicting) goals. To the user, the AGI is like a smarter internet. It would differ from Google in that any message you post is instantly available to anyone who cares (human or machine). There is no distinction between queries and documents. Posting a message could initiate an interactive conversation, or result in related messages posted later being sent to you. A peer needs two types of knowledge. It knows about some specialized topic, and it also knows which other peers are experts on related topics. For simple peers, "related" just means they share the same words, and a peer is simply a cache of messages posted and received recently by its owner. In my CMR proposal, messages are stamped with the ID and time of origin as well as any peers they were routed through. This cached header information constitutes knowledge about related peers. When a peer receives a message, it compares the words in it to cached messages and routes a copy to the peers listed in the headers of those messages. Peers have their own policies regarding their areas of specialization, which can be as simple as giving the cache priority to messages originating from its owner. There is no provision to delete messages from the network once they are posted. Each peer would have its own deletion policy. The environment is competitive and hostile. Peers compete for reputation and attention by providing quality information, which allows them to charge more for routing targeted ads. Peers are responsible for authenticating their sources, and risk blacklisting if they route too much spam. Peers thus have an incentive to be intelligent, for example, using better language models such as a stemmer, thesaurus, and parser to better identify related messages, or providing specialized services that understand a narrow subset of natural language, the way Google calculator understands questions like "how many gallons in 50 cubic feet?" So yeah, it is a little different than narrow AI. As to why I'm not building it, it's because I estimate it will cost $1 quadrillion. Google controls about 1/1000 of the computing power of the internet. I am talking about building something 1000 times bigger. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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
