On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:16:09AM -0400, Mark Waser wrote: > I'll go you one better . . . . I truly believe that the minimal AGI > core, sans KB content, is 0 lines of code . . . .
In theory, a TOE can be quite small. In theory, you could have a low-level physical simulation that's happening to be an intelligent system. In practice, however... As they say, in theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is. > Just like C compilers are written in C, the AGI should be entirely > written in it's knowledge base (eventually) to the point that it can What's the knowledge base between your ears is written in? > understand itself, rewrite itself, and recompile itself in it's What makes you think the system can ever understand itself, whatever that term means exactly? Evolution doesn't understand anything, but as an optimization process it produced us from prebiotic ursoup, which is nothing to sneeze at. > entirety. The problem is bootstrapping to that point. Since nobody here knows, how about evolution? Empirically validated is not good enough for you? > Personally, I find all of these wild-ass guess-timates and opinion > polls quite humorous. Given that we can't all even agree on what an It's okay as long as everybody agrees they're wild-ass guesstimates. > AGI is, much less how to do it, how can we possibly think that we can I dunno about you, but I see a general intelligence (admittedly, not much of an intelligence) every morning in the shaving mirror. As I said, you'll know AGI when it hits the job market and the news. > accurately estimate it's features? -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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/?list_id=303
