You should incl.the establishment of the field of "AGI" by one Goertzel & co
c. 2005 - wh. was distinctive because it aimed much more precisely than
before at:
"the creation of systems with GENERAL intelligence as distinct
from specialized capabilities and performance on narrowly defined tasks"
as opposed to Minsky & MaCarthy's supervague goal of "HUMAN intelligence."
And "AGI" has entered the currency and is now used by people as diverse as
Deutsch and Brooks.
Unfortunately the aforesaid Goertzel seems to be reverting to supervague
"human intelligence" & undermining AGI's distinctiveness.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Goertzel
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:32 PM
To: AGI
Subject: [agi] Seeking constructive feedback regarding history and survey
papers on AI/AGI
Hi all,
Because I'm a sucker for punishment, and also because I do value the
chunks of useful feedback that sometimes emerge amidst all the noise,
I'm posting rough drafts of a couple in-process survey papers online
and soliciting comments from list members...
These are not original research papers, but rather papers written as
chapters for a forthcoming book, seeking to give background regarding
the AGI field...
This one surveys the history of the AI field from antiquity to the
present day, from an AGI-oriented perspective:
http://goertzel.org/AGI_History_early_draft.pdf
It's mostly not original information, but has a different slant than
most histories of AI I've seen.... The timeline figures are also
available at
http://goertzel.org/AI_timeline/assets/player/KeynoteDHTMLPlayer.html#0
This one attempts to give an overview of the AGI field itself, at the
present time:
http://goertzel.org/AGI_survey_early_draft.pdf
Comments will be valued, especially regarding
-- important stuff that I may have inadvertently left out, that can be
inserted without making the papers copiously longer
-- things that I have inadvertently explained in a confusing or
misleading manner (even beyond the confusingness intrinsically induced
by the subject matter ;-)
Comments about specific portions of the paper might be easier to
incorporate into revised drafts, if you indicate exactly what text in
the paper you're referring to, either with page/section numbers or
snippets of text, etc.
Thanks ;)
Ben
P.S.
Comments by Mike Tintner or others about how everyone in the AGI
field is totally wrong so it's worthless to survey their worthless
work, or how the whole history of the AI field is a history of utter
failure that doesn't deserve to be chronicled, etc. etc. -- are
specifically NOT solicited. I'm looking for feedback on how to
improve the papers, while keeping their general thrust the same; not
for opinions on whether writing papers of this nature is even
worthwhile.... I am already aware of the scope of opinions opposing
the foundation of my own and others' AGI work...
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org
"My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
