Ben Goertzel wrote:
Much of this discussion is very abstract, which is I guess how you think about
these issues when you don't have a specific AGI design in mind.
My view is a little different.
If the Novamente design is basically correct, there's no way it can possibly
take thousands or
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is
all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the
following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions
Mike Tintner wrote:
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that
is all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the
following is a reasonable *framework*
Mike:
I am a novice to this AGI business and so I am not being cute with the
following question: What, in your opinion, would be the first AGI problem to
tackle. Perhaps theses various problems can't be priority ordered but
nontheless, which problem stands out for you?. Thanks.
Mike,
Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved.
If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of
AGI, and let us list them.
1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving
problem in, a new domain)
Samantha,
You know, I am getting pretty tired of hearing this poor mouth crap. This
is not that huge a sum to raise or get financed. Hell, there are some very
futuristic rich geeks who could finance this single-handed and would not
really care that much whether they could somehow monetize
I don't think any reasonable person in AI or AGI will claim any of these
have been solved. They may want to claim their method has promise, but not
that it has actually solved any of them.
Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious
researcher disagrees. So why
Ben Goertzel: Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No
serious researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point?
Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and it's
regrettable but it was either that or start taking blood pressure
Mike Tintner wrote:
Mike,
Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been
solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a
problem of AGI, and let us list them.
1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving
problem in, a new
Derek Zahn wrote:
Ben Goertzel:
Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious
researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point?
Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and
it's regrettable but it was either that or start
Ben:So why is it worth repeating the point?Similarly, up till the moment
when the first astronauts walked on the moon,
you could have run around yelping that no one has solved the problem of
how to make a person walk on the moon, all they've done is propose methods
that seem to have promise.
I
Mike Tintner wrote:
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If
that is all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest
the following is a reasonable *framework*
Hi Mike
Your 1 consists of two separate challenges: (1) reasoning (2) learning
IMHO your 3 to 6 can be classified under (3) pattern recognition. I think
perhaps even your 2 may flow out of pattern recognition.
Of course, the real challenge is to find an algorithmic way (or architecture)
to do
Jean-Paul,
More or less yes to your points. (I was only tossing off something quickly).
Actually I think there's a common core to 2)-7) and will be setting out
something about that soon. But I don't think it's recognizing patterns - on
the contrary, the common problem is partly that there
--- Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At any rate, if there were some clearly-specified tests that are not
AGI-complete and yet not easily attackable with straightforward software
engineering or Narrow AI techniques, that would be a huge boost in my
opinion to this field. I can't think of
Ben,
Good Afternoon. I am a rather new addition to the AGI mailing list and
just read your response concerning the future of AGI. I agree with you.
The funding is there. The belief that AGI is right around the corner is
not. From the people I talk withthey have read Kurzweil and
Hi,
Just my personal opinion...but it appears that the exponential technology
growth chart, which is used in many of the briefings, does not include
AI/AGI. It is processing centric. When you include AI/AGI the exponential
technology curve flattens out in the coming years (5-7) and becomes
Since I am making an effort to get a good chunk of stuff written this
week and next, I want to let y'all know when I put out new stuff...
I have written a short, accessible summary of the CSP argument on my
blog, as a preparation for the next phase tomorrow.
Hopefully this one will not be
18 matches
Mail list logo
