If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't think a "test" is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how what you have built fits into the bigger scheme of things. There is no such point at which you can say something is "AGI" and not "AGI". Intelligence is a very subjective thing that really depends on your goals. Someone will always say it is not good enough. But if it really works, people will quickly realize it based on results.
What you want is to develop a system that can learn about the world or its environment in a general way so that it can solve arbitrary problems, be able to plan in general ways, act in general ways and perform the types of goals you want it to perform. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM, deepakjnath <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]>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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
