The most important case would be the one where it does show some capability of learning a crude simplistic language but where it either lacks subtlety or where it shows a wide variation of depth. In some cases, for example, it might seem to be working but then it just cannot continue to learn new things about a particular subject or where other subjects which are comparably as easy seem to be totally beyond it. This is along the lines of how other AI projects have fared. Let's say that my project did turn out like this. Then in order to show that it was a valid concept I would have to advance the program so that it was able to go further than it had. The thing is that although the various AI methods are able to do some tasks better than others they all fail at a level below what we need to see in order to compare them to children. So being human like is not the immediate goal, and being really smart is not the immediate goal. But I would need to show that I could improve on contemporary AGI programs in order to demonstrate that my ideas were workable and since my program would be limited I would need to show that some improvements could be made to my program.
Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
