I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what "true AGI criteria" would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate your idea that AGI has to be diversifiable but your inability to understand certain things that are said about computer programming makes your proclamation look odd. Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria? > > The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be > capable of being "scaled up" is a narrow AI criterion. > > The proper criterion is "diversifiable." If your system can say navigate a > DARPA car through a grid of city streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - > or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a > forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI > if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind > - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . "Scale" > is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. > *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
