So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right?
Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of > tests of AGI. > > Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See > archives). > > I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from > rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). > > However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what > AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. > few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. > > The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an > embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No > explanation offered. > > The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's "solves a variety of > complex problems in a variety of complex environments". Nope, so does a > multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - > something to do with "insufficient knowledge and resources..." > "Insufficient" is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to > mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't > distinguish AGI from narrow AI. > > The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is > that: > > ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent > learning** > > i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal > guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - > and thus acquiring a "general", "all-round" range of intelligence.. > > This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and > mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being > specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow > AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's > AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able > to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - > they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But > I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. > > However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive > AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. > > It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which > distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. > > [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments & continue another time]. > > P.S. Deepakjnath, > > It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * > want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in > this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US > banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of > their assets. > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- cheers, Deepak ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
