On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:35:31PM -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote: > None, because we have not defined what AGI is.
AGI is like porn. I'll know it when I'll see it. > One definition of AGI is passing the Turing test. That will not happen. A > machine can just as easily fail by being too smart, too fast, or too obedient, The Turing test implies ability to deceive. If your system can't deceive a human, it has failed the test. > as it can by being not smart enough. Machines have been smarter than humans > in some areas and less smart in others for the last 50 years. Even a machine > that is superior to human intellect in every conceivable way would not be > mistaken for human. There is no economic incentive to dumb down a machine > just to duplicate human limitations. Deception is implicit in Turings original experiment. > If AGI is not the Turing test, then what is it? What test do you propose? > > Without a definition, we should stop calling it AGI and focus on the problems > for which machines are still inferior to humans, such as language or vision. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
