1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear
why your approach is one and not the other
2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they
can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI
learning?
3) "Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and
handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes
it general!"
Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. Interesting
philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers' fantasies of
"take-off". You can compare it to the idea that all science can be reduced to
physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But it's demonstrably
not so.
You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the NEW -
the unfamiliar, that wh. cannot be broken down into familiar categories, - and
then find ways of dealing with it ad hoc.
You have to demonstrate a capacity for dealing with the new. (As opposed to,
say, narrow AI squares).
From: David Jones
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:44 PM
To: agi
Subject: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Hey Guys,
I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and
debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF
format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and
hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or
negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and
editing it over the next few days.
I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S
Cheers,
Dave
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
