Matthias Heger:> If you give the system the rules of chess then it has all which is necessary> to know to become a good chess player. I would agree with this and also with your thesis that a true AGI must be able to learn chess in this way. However, although this ability is necessary it is far from sufficient for AGI, and thinking about AGI from this very narrow perspective seems to me to be a poor way to attack the problem. Very few of the things an AGI must be able to do (as the Heinlein quote points out) are similar to chess -- completely described, complete information about state available, fully deterministic. If you aim at chess you might hit chess but there's no reason that you will achieve anything higher. Still, using chess as a test case may not be useless; a system that produces a convincing story about concept formation in the chess domain (that is, that invents concepts for pinning, pawn chains, speculative sacrifices in exchange for piece mobility, zugzwang, and so on without an identifiable bias toward these things) would at least be interesting to those interested in AGI. Mathematics, though, is interesting in other ways. I don't believe that much of mathematics involves the logical transformations performed in proof steps. A system that invents new fields of mathematics, new terms, new mathematical "ideas" -- that is truly interesting. Inference control is boring, but inventing mathematical induction, complex numbers, or ring theory -- THAT is AGI-worthy.
------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
