The quantum level biases would be more general and more correct as it is the
case 
with quantum physics and classical physics.

The reasons why humans do not have modern physics biases for space and time:
There is no relevant advantage to survive when you have such biases
and probably the costs of necessary resources to obtain any advantage are
far too high
for a biological system.

But with future AGI (not the first level), these objections won't hold.
We don't need AGI do help us with middle level physics. We will need AGI
to make progress in worlds, were our innate intuitions do not hold, namely
nanotechnology, inner cellular biology.
So there would be an advantage for quantum biases and because of this
advantage the quantum biases would probably more often used than non-quantum
biases.

And what about the costs of resources? We could imagine an AGI brain which
has the size of a continent.
Of course not for the first level AGI. But I am sure, that future AGIs will
have quantum biases.

But as Ben said: First we should build AGI with biases we have and
understand.

And the main 3 problems of AGI should be solved first:
How to obtain knowledge, how to represent knowledge and how to use knowledge
to solve different problems in different domains.





Charles Hixson wrote:

I feel that an AI with quantum level biases would be less general. It 
would be drastically handicapped when dealing with the middle level, 
which is where most of living is centered. Certainly an AGI should have 
modules which can more or less directly handle quantum events, but I 
would predict that those would not be as heavily used as the ones that 
deal with the mid level. We (usually) use temperature rather then 
molecule speeds for very good reasons.




-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to