|
Ben Goertzel wrote:
>Note that I don't begrudge Google the label "AI" -- IMO it's
just as much
>AI
as most of the stuff in Russel & Norvig (the classic AI text). I just
>begrudge it the title "AGI" ;-) ... Of course, I realize that with
finite processing
>power there is no truly general intelligence. But there are
levels of generality
>in intelligence, and Google's is quite low.
>Next, your message seems to imply that commercial success or
popularity
>are a decent measure of scientific or engineering quality or
interestingness.
>This is just not the case, as
is shown by very many examples in recent and
>less recent history.
Agreed.
>Finally, you suggest that an in-development
AGI should necessarily have
>powerful applications -- e.g. that a
60%-complete AGI implementation should
>be 60% as useful as a complete
AGI. It's just not true. There are plenty
of
>other areas of science and engineering where
this kind of "continuity" doesn't
>hold either. A 60%-complete spacecraft
doesn't fly anywhere, and probably
>has very little commercial value
-- so what?
Yes, this
continuity certainly doesn't hold for space-crafts or a good many other
engineering endeavors, but your analogy to them is flawed. If it were true, it
would mean that it would be impossible for an AGI--more specifically, us--to
evolve, since a 60% complete human-AGI, such as, say, a chimp, would presumably
be too stupid to be successful in its environment, what with it only having
a good deal less than 60% human-level AGI-power, after all. If evolution was
able to make commercially successful spin-offs on its way to AGI, why can't
you?
Paul
Fidika
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
- Re: [agi] Google as a strong AI Paul Fidika
- RE: [agi] Google as a strong AI Ben Goertzel
