Fair-enough question. Let me try.
I could answer your question in two, possible ways. One of these exists in the
domain of science fiction.
Suppose the brain of homo sapiens were in fact an instrument, which was
bootstrapped with a non-biological copy of a far-greater intelligence.
" to develop AGI, one must first become it - somehow. "
-- What does "becoming an AGI" mean to you?
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:18 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <
nano...@live.com> wrote:
> I appreciate your response.
>
> A purely, policy-driven AGI may satisfy some of those requirements.
I appreciate your response.
A purely, policy-driven AGI may satisfy some of those requirements. It depends
on the extent of operational control that was desired. Policy management seems
central to measurable, human intelligence.
If I recall, the Component Architecture Management Framework
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 3:16 AM wrote:
> Or maybe Colin means (i) is the human brain naturally, (ii) is us creating
> a real artificial humans brain where the actual physical implementation may
> have effects that a computer sim wouldn't have (unless worked hard to code
> in the physics/ rules),
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 3:33 AM James Bowery wrote:
> Carver Mead abides. His book "Collective Electrodynamics" has not
> received the attention it deserves, IMHO. The ansatz of that book aligns
> his interest in analog neural networks with Lester Ingber's
> neurophysiological modeling of
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 12:30 AM wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
>
> (i) Observation of a natural context (empirical science).
>
> (ii) Observation of artificial versions of the natural
> context. Call this engineered or
***
However, by virtue of the anecdotal evidence I observed in this
context, I'm convinced the PRC are probably pursuing a version of AGI
with utmost urgency
***
It could be. I'm just saying, I looked for evidence for that
moderately hard at the top Chinese tech companies and universities and
We're not discussing Chinese politics, but aspirations, specifically their
possible interest in winning the "AGI" race. We're also not running a one-liner
tit-for-tat campaign. Bear with me, if you will. Our arguments require more
than just a few, terse comments.
Agreed, I'm raising a
Or maybe Colin means (i) is the human brain naturally, (ii) is us creating a
real artificial humans brain where the actual physical implementation may have
effects that a computer sim wouldn't have (unless worked hard to code in the
physics/ rules), and (iii) is a computer simulated human
On Thursday, December 31, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
> (i) Observation of a natural
context (empirical science).
> (ii) Observation of artificial
versions of the natural context. Call this engineered or replicated nature a
‘scientifically-artificial’
On Friday, January 01, 2021, at 3:37 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Wouldn't you expect this to work about as well as having a bunch of monkeys
> role-play humans in order to predict the course of development of the
> Internet and nanotechnology and quantum computing? ;)
ROFL brilliant Ben! I agree,
I don't have time to embark on an in-depth discussion of Chinese
politics and history etc., though I do know something about it (not
just due to living in HK for 9 yrs, but also my wife is a mainland
Chinese AI PhD, etc.) But I want to note a couple points,
-- China has never sought global
> . I have repeatedly suggested that we hold a reverse Turing competition
> (where groups pretend to be AGIs) to see where limitless intelligence might
> lead, but so far NO ONE has shown any interest.
>
Wouldn't you expect this to work about as well as having a bunch of
monkeys role-play
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 4:14 AM James Bowery wrote:
> Ben I really hate it when people interject "go read this book" in a
> conversation but you're a voracious enough reader that I hope you'll
> forgive me when I request that you read E. O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest
> of Earth" to get a
14 matches
Mail list logo
