--- On Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH a global brain coordinating humans and narrow-AI's can **also** be quite
> dangerous ... and arguably more so, because it's **definitely** very
> unpredictable in almost every aspect ... whereas a system with a dual
> hierarchic
More powerful, more interesting, and if done badly quite dangerous,
indeed...
OTOH a global brain coordinating humans and narrow-AI's can **also** be
quite dangerous ... and arguably more so, because it's **definitely** very
unpredictable in almost every aspect ... whereas a system with a dual
hie
> For instance, your proposed AGI would have no explicit self-model, and
no capacity to coordinate a large percentage of its resources into a
single deliberative process.
That's a feature, not a bug. If an AGI could do this, I would regard it as
dangerous. Who decides what it should do? In my
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I hope not to sound like a broken record here ... but ... not every
> >narrow AI advance is actually a step toward AGI ...
>
> It is if AGI is billions of nar
--- On Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I hope not to sound like a broken record here ... but ... not every
>narrow AI advance is actually a step toward AGI ...
It is if AGI is billions of narrow experts and a distributed index to get your
messages to the right ones.
I und
I hope not to sound like a broken record here ... but ... not every narrow
AI advance is actually a step toward AGI ...
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So here is another step toward AGI, a hard image classification problem
> solved with near human-level
So here is another step toward AGI, a hard image classification problem solved
with near human-level ability, and all I hear is criticism. Sheesh! I hope your
own work is not attacked like this.
I would understand if the researchers had proposed something stupid like using
the software in court
2008/10/2 Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It "boasts" a 50% recognition accuracy rate +/-5 years and an 80%
> recognition accuracy rate +/-10 years. Unless, of course, the subject is
> wearing a big floppy hat, makeup or has had Botox treatment recently. Or
> found his dad's Ronald Reagan mas
