On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I hope not to sound like a broken record here ... but ... not every > >narrow AI advance is actually a step toward AGI ... > > It is if AGI is billions of narrow experts and a distributed index to get > your messages to the right ones. > > I understand your objection that it is way too expensive ($1 quadrillion), > even if it does pay for itself. I would like to be proved wrong... IMO, that would be a very interesting AGI, yet not the **most** interesting kind due to its primarily heterarchical nature ... the human mind has this sort of self-organized, widely-distributed aspect, but also a more centralized, coordinated control aspect. I think an AGI which similarly combines these two aspects will be much more interesting and powerful. For instance, your proposed AGI would have no explicit self-model, and no capacity to coordinate a large percentage of its resources into a single deliberative process..... It's much like what Francis Heyllighen envisions as the "Global Brain." Very interesting, yet IMO not the way to get the maximum intelligence out of a given amount of computational substrate... 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
