On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:43 PM Steve Richfield via AGI
wrote:
> Should we be:
>
> 1. hiring otherwise-homeless people to drive cars, or
> 2. have computers drive our cars and tax the computers to support the
> homeless, or
> 3. ignore what technology is doing to our society and just let
Rob,
Should we be:
1. hiring otherwise-homeless people to drive cars, or
2. have computers drive our cars and tax the computers to support the
homeless, or
3. ignore what technology is doing to our society and just let Darwin do
his ugly thing to the homeless?
I get your point about using
Quite happy to discuss AGI. I've been thinking, if we could truly mainstream
self-driving cars by resolving the remaining issues hampering its maturity, it
would be a significant step forward towards achieving AGI feasibility. Should
AGI researchers be pooling their talent to that purpose,
I disagree with most of this.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:31 PM Steve Richfield via AGI
wrote:
> My AGI-related interest here springs from my observation that nearly
> everything people expect from an AGI:
> 1. Is well within human problem solving ability.
No. Machines already do many things
