>> 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.
I believe that generic concept formation and explanation is an AGI-complete problem. Would you agree or disagree? >> 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. Is this different from generic concept formulation and explanation (just in a slightly different domain)? ------------------------------------------- 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
