On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > You can find the papers here. > http://www.mindmakers.org/projects/agiconf-2012/wiki/Schedule
I read the extended abstracts here: http://www.winterintelligence.org/agi-impacts-extended-abstracts/ Summary: out of 12 papers, 0 report advances toward AGI. The one paper that reports any experimental results whatsoever is the one by Stuart Armstrong: Predicting AI… or failing to. The main result (from reading the whole paper) is that the distribution of predictions of time to AI has not changed since the 1950's, even though those predictions are known to be wrong. Nine of the papers are on the general theme of safety, ethics, or friendliness of self improving AI. There seems to be a general belief that if we can produce a smarter than human AI, then so could it, only faster. So we had better get its goal system right. But there is only one problem. It is all of humanity, not a single human, that produced this super-human AI. So the threshold for self improvement hasn't been crossed yet. If you want an example of recursive self improvement, then look at civilization making a better version of civilization, as measured by economic growth and increased life expectancy. That is happening in spite of the lack of any obvious goal system that needs to be programmed. To see why creating a single super-human AI is not recursive self improvement, ask yourself if you could have done it 100 years ago, knowing what you know now. Could you have done it if you were the only living person on the planet? If not, then you had help. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
