Re: [agi] just a thought
You make a very good point BUT human intelligence doesn't come from the 6 billion individuals there are currently living on Earth or from the dead humans of the past. Most humans don't contribute very much to the collective knowledge of mankind. The number of contributing humans could be as few as 10's of millions or so. I don't think this is a problem for AGI because, if you could create an AGI with about the level of intelligence of a single human, you could duplicate it quickly and exactly to as many individual computer systems as you desired. Humans have many ways of communicating with each other but all are very slow and imprecise, unlike computer systems, so many less computers could probably do more with less. The computer systems could have a much more flexible mental architecture than humans are capable of. Eg: 1 second 1 mind the next second millions of minds. These minds could be cooperative, competitive and everything in between and change this structure as needed. Human minds don't deal accurately with detail (unlike a computer) and therefore how many times must a human revisit the same idea to develop that idea in any meaningful way? How much does human's very small variable space (7-12 things) reduce our metal abilities? A computer has no such limitation. Human minds wander and get tired quite quickly unlike a computer and how much does that degrade our intelligence? A computer AGI would have so many basic differences with humans that trying to compare some number of humans to some particular AGI system wouldn't be very meaningful. Your observation, however, that an AGI of about human intelligence won't have the intelligence of humanity, is still correct. I only question how much more computing power a human level AGI would have to have to out perform humanity. The other thing that complicates this analysis is that it is very unlikely that an AGI will out perform an average human in all ways, ever. There will be things the AGI does MUCH better than humans and other things humans do better than it will ever do. There are things that are only relevant to humans and although these abilities are important to humans, they will always be irrelevant to any AGI (sex, eating a balanced diet, bringing up kids, etc). An AGI could be totally deficient in all these areas and still perform very well. -- David - Original Message - From: Valentina Poletti To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:17 PM Subject: [agi] just a thought Not in reference to any specific current discussion, I find it interesting that when people talk of human like intelligence in the realm of AGI, they refer to the ability of a human individual, or human brain if you like. It just occurred to me that human beings are not that intelligent. Well, of course we are super intelligent compared to a frog (as some would say) but then again a frog is super intelligent compared to an aunt. Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. So that's why I think it is important to put emphasis on this when talking about super-human intelligence. That was my 2-in-the-morning thought. I guess I should sleep now. -- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. I agree. A machine that is 10 times as smart as a human in every way could not achieve much more than hiring 10 more people. In order to automate the economy, we have to replicate the capabilities of not one human mind, but a system of 10^10 minds. That is why my AGI proposal is so hideously expensive. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html Let's fire Matt and hire 10 chimps instead. Problems with IQ notwithstanding, I'm confident that, were my silly IQ of 145 merely doubled, I could convince Dr. Goertzel to give me the majority of his assets, including control of his businesses. And if he were to really meet someone that bright, he would be a fool or super-human not to do so, which he isn't (a fool, that is). Even a simpleton such as myself can see that Mr. Mahoney is quite on a wrong track with this line of thought. Matt can know little or nothing about the strategies of such a bright, single agent. -Christopher Carr --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
Valentina, It's a v.g. point does refer. You're saying there is no individual without social intelligence, and we'll need a society of AGI's. It does refer to creativity. Every creative problem we face is actually, strictly, inseparable from a whole body of creative problems. In trying to solve the engram problem, Richard is not a lone hero, but a part of the vast collective enterprise of science/scientists trying to understand the brain as a whole, and his eventual discovery will have to dovetail with others' efforts. So not just one AGI, Ben, a whole society of them. He's on to it. (And every problem we solve - just using language - is also interdependent with the whole society's efforts/problems - and use of language).Of course, only a woman would think about other people here :). Valentina: Not in reference to any specific current discussion, I find it interesting that when people talk of human like intelligence in the realm of AGI, they refer to the ability of a human individual, or human brain if you like. It just occurred to me that human beings are not that intelligent. Well, of course we are super intelligent compared to a frog (as some would say) but then again a frog is super intelligent compared to an aunt. Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. So that's why I think it is important to put emphasis on this when talking about super-human intelligence. That was my 2-in-the-morning thought. I guess I should sleep now. -- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. I agree. A machine that is 10 times as smart as a human in every way could not achieve much more than hiring 10 more people. In order to automate the economy, we have to replicate the capabilities of not one human mind, but a system of 10^10 minds. That is why my AGI proposal is so hideously expensive. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html Now really expensive if quantum entanglement is in fact present in a hybrid of quantum circuits stored in carbon tetrachloride functioning as a capacitor. In principle 420 billion human minds or about 84 octillion qubits can be stored entangled in 8 Mayonnaise jars of carbon tetrachloride. Carbon tetrachloride causes cancer and requires a government permit to use. --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
2009/1/14 Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. Yes. I think Ben made a similar point in The Hidden Pattern. People studying human intelligence - psychologists, psychiatrists, cognitive scientists, etc - tend to focus narrowly on the individual brain, but human intelligence is more of an emergent networked phenomena populated by strange meta-entities such as archetypes and memes. Even the greatest individuals from the world of science or art didn't make their achievements in a vacuum, and were influenced by earlier works. Years ago I was chatting with someone who was about to patent some piece of machinery. He had his name on the patent, but was pointing out that it's very difficult to be able to say exactly who made the invention - who was the guiding mind. In this case many individuals within his company had some creative input, and there was really no one inventor as such. I think many human-made artifacts are like this. --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
Ron et al: I suspect that you guys are thinking like classic nerds - ok we just *multiply* the number of minds - a purely mathematical operation. But actually social thinking is much more than that - the minds will really need to *interact* - they can't just *parallel process* in the current meaning of the term. They would need to do the equivalent of what happens here and in every organization and society - adopt competing positions, form into opposing schools of thought, refuse to talk to each other and go off in theatrical huffs like some who shall be nameless here, conspire against each other, form alliances - of course have sex with each other. Ron co: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. I agree. A machine that is 10 times as smart as a human in every way could not achieve much more than hiring 10 more people. In order to automate the economy, we have to replicate the capabilities of not one human mind, but a system of 10^10 minds. That is why my AGI proposal is so hideously expensive. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html Now really expensive if quantum entanglement is in fact present in a hybrid of quantum circuits stored in carbon tetrachloride functioning as a capacitor. In principle 420 billion human minds or about 84 octillion qubits can be stored entangled in 8 Mayonnaise jars of carbon tetrachloride. Carbon tetrachloride causes cancer and requires a government permit to use. --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Christopher Carr cac...@pdx.edu wrote: Problems with IQ notwithstanding, I'm confident that, were my silly IQ of 145 merely doubled, I could convince Dr. Goertzel to give me the majority of his assets, including control of his businesses. And if he were to really meet someone that bright, he would be a fool or super-human not to do so, which he isn't (a fool, that is). First, if you knew what you would do if you were twice as smart, you would already be that smart. Therefore you don't know. Second, you have never even met anyone with an IQ of 290. How do you know what they would do? How do you measure an IQ of 100n? - Ability to remember n times as much? - Ability to learn n times faster? - Ability to solve problems n times faster? - Ability to do the work of n people? - Ability to make n times as much money? - Ability to communicate with n people at once? Please give me an IQ test that measures something that can't be done by n log n people (allowing for some organizational overhead). -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] just a thought
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Wed, 1/14/09, Christopher Carr cac...@pdx.edu wrote: Problems with IQ notwithstanding, I'm confident that, were my silly IQ of 145 merely doubled, I could convince Dr. Goertzel to give me the majority of his assets, including control of his businesses. And if he were to really meet someone that bright, he would be a fool or super-human not to do so, which he isn't (a fool, that is). First, if you knew what you would do if you were twice as smart, you would already be that smart. Therefore you don't know. Second, you have never even met anyone with an IQ of 290. How do you know what they would do? How do you measure an IQ of 100n? - Ability to remember n times as much? - Ability to learn n times faster? - Ability to solve problems n times faster? - Ability to do the work of n people? - Ability to make n times as much money? - Ability to communicate with n people at once? Please give me an IQ test that measures something that can't be done by n log n people (allowing for some organizational overhead). How do you measure the collective IQ of humanity? Individual IQ's are just a subset. John --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
Cool, this idea has already been applied successfully to some areas of AI, such as ant-colony algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms. But I was thinking that it would be interesting to apply it at a high level. For example, consider that you create the best AGI agent you can come up with and, instead of running just one, you create several copies of it (perhaps with slight variations), and you initiate each in a different part of your reality or environment for such agents, after letting them have the ability to communicate. In this way whenever one such agents learns anything meaningful he passes the information to all other agents as well, that is, it not only modifies its own policy but it also affects the other's to some extent (determined by some constant or/and by how much the other agent likes this one, that is how useful learning from it has been in the past and so on). This way not only each agent would learn much faster, but also the agents could learn to use this communication ability to their advantage to ameliorate. I just think it would be interesting to implement this, not that I am capable of right now. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/14 Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. Yes. I think Ben made a similar point in The Hidden Pattern. People studying human intelligence - psychologists, psychiatrists, cognitive scientists, etc - tend to focus narrowly on the individual brain, but human intelligence is more of an emergent networked phenomena populated by strange meta-entities such as archetypes and memes. Even the greatest individuals from the world of science or art didn't make their achievements in a vacuum, and were influenced by earlier works. Years ago I was chatting with someone who was about to patent some piece of machinery. He had his name on the patent, but was pointing out that it's very difficult to be able to say exactly who made the invention - who was the guiding mind. In this case many individuals within his company had some creative input, and there was really no one inventor as such. I think many human-made artifacts are like this. --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong. For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong. - H.L. Mencken --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
Chris: Problems with IQ notwithstanding, I'm confident that, were my silly IQ of 145 merely doubled,.. Chris/Matt: Hasn't anyone ever told you - it's not the size of it, it's what you do with it that counts? --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
I guess something like this is in the plan of many, if not all, AGI projects. For NARS, see http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf , under (4) Socialization in page 11. It is just that to attempt any non-trivial multi-agent experiment, the work in single agent needs to be mature enough. The AGI projects are not there yet. Pei On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com wrote: Cool, this idea has already been applied successfully to some areas of AI, such as ant-colony algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms. But I was thinking that it would be interesting to apply it at a high level. For example, consider that you create the best AGI agent you can come up with and, instead of running just one, you create several copies of it (perhaps with slight variations), and you initiate each in a different part of your reality or environment for such agents, after letting them have the ability to communicate. In this way whenever one such agents learns anything meaningful he passes the information to all other agents as well, that is, it not only modifies its own policy but it also affects the other's to some extent (determined by some constant or/and by how much the other agent likes this one, that is how useful learning from it has been in the past and so on). This way not only each agent would learn much faster, but also the agents could learn to use this communication ability to their advantage to ameliorate. I just think it would be interesting to implement this, not that I am capable of right now. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/14 Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. Yes. I think Ben made a similar point in The Hidden Pattern. People studying human intelligence - psychologists, psychiatrists, cognitive scientists, etc - tend to focus narrowly on the individual brain, but human intelligence is more of an emergent networked phenomena populated by strange meta-entities such as archetypes and memes. Even the greatest individuals from the world of science or art didn't make their achievements in a vacuum, and were influenced by earlier works. Years ago I was chatting with someone who was about to patent some piece of machinery. He had his name on the patent, but was pointing out that it's very difficult to be able to say exactly who made the invention - who was the guiding mind. In this case many individuals within his company had some creative input, and there was really no one inventor as such. I think many human-made artifacts are like this. --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong. For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong. - H.L. Mencken 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
Is having a strong sense of self one aspect of mature enough? Also, Dr. Wang, do you see this as a primary way for teaching empathy. I believe Ben has written about hardwiring the desire to work with other agents as a possible means of encouraging empathy. Do you agree with this approach and/or have other ideas for encouraging empathy (assuming you see empathy as a good goal)? From: Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com Reply-To: agi@v2.listbox.com To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] just a thought Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:21:23 -0500 I guess something like this is in the plan of many, if not all, AGI projects. For NARS, see http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf , under (4) Socialization in page 11. It is just that to attempt any non-trivial multi-agent experiment, the work in single agent needs to be mature enough. The AGI projects are not there yet. Pei On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com wrote: Cool, this idea has already been applied successfully to some areas of AI, such as ant-colony algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms. But I was thinking that it would be interesting to apply it at a high level. For example, consider that you create the best AGI agent you can come up with and, instead of running just one, you create several copies of it (perhaps with slight variations), and you initiate each in a different part of your reality or environment for such agents, after letting them have the ability to communicate. In this way whenever one such agents learns anything meaningful he passes the information to all other agents as well, that is, it not only modifies its own policy but it also affects the other's to some extent (determined by some constant or/and by how much the other agent likes this one, that is how useful learning from it has been in the past and so on). This way not only each agent would learn much faster, but also the agents could learn to use this communication ability to their advantage to ameliorate. I just think it would be interesting to implement this, not that I am capable of right now. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/14 Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. Yes. I think Ben made a similar point in The Hidden Pattern. People studying human intelligence - psychologists, psychiatrists, cognitive scientists, etc - tend to focus narrowly on the individual brain, but human intelligence is more of an emergent networked phenomena populated by strange meta-entities such as archetypes and memes. Even the greatest individuals from the world of science or art didn't make their achievements in a vacuum, and were influenced by earlier works. Years ago I was chatting with someone who was about to patent some piece of machinery. He had his name on the patent, but was pointing out that it's very difficult to be able to say exactly who made the invention - who was the guiding mind. In this case many individuals within his company had some creative input, and there was really no one inventor as such. I think many human-made artifacts are like this. --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong. For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong. - H.L. Mencken 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/?; Powered by Listbox: 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] just a thought
Not in reference to any specific current discussion, I find it interesting that when people talk of human like intelligence in the realm of AGI, they refer to the ability of a human individual, or human brain if you like. It just occurred to me that human beings are not that intelligent. Well, of course we are super intelligent compared to a frog (as some would say) but then again a frog is super intelligent compared to an aunt. Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with millions of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing things. But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single artifact of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. So that's why I think it is important to put emphasis on this when talking about super-human intelligence. That was my 2-in-the-morning thought. I guess I should sleep now. --- 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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
--- On Tue, 1/13/09, Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. I agree. A machine that is 10 times as smart as a human in every way could not achieve much more than hiring 10 more people. In order to automate the economy, we have to replicate the capabilities of not one human mind, but a system of 10^10 minds. That is why my AGI proposal is so hideously expensive. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] just a thought
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, so much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of several individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other that has made us advance so much. I agree. A machine that is 10 times as smart as a human in every way could not achieve much more than hiring 10 more people. In order to automate the economy, we have to replicate the capabilities of not one human mind, but a system of 10^10 minds. That is why my AGI proposal is so hideously expensive. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html Let's fire Matt and hire 10 chimps instead. -- Vladimir Nesov robot...@gmail.com http://causalityrelay.wordpress.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=8660244id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
