More powerful, more interesting, and if done badly quite dangerous, indeed...
OTOH a global brain coordinating humans and narrow-AI's can **also** be quite dangerous ... and arguably more so, because it's **definitely** very unpredictable in almost every aspect ... whereas a system with a dual hierarchical/heterarchical structure and a well-defined goal system, may perhaps be predictable in certain important aspects, if it is designed with this sort of predictability in mind... ben On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For instance, your proposed AGI would have no explicit self-model, and no > capacity to coordinate a large percentage of its resources into a single > deliberative process..... > > That's a feature, not a bug. If an AGI could do this, I would regard it as > dangerous. Who decides what it should do? In my proposal, resources are > owned by humans who can trade them on a market. Either a large number of > people or a smaller group with a lot of money would have to be convinced > that the problem was important. However, the AGI would also make it easy to > form complex organizations quickly. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- On *Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote: > > From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Let's face it, this is just dumb. > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 2:08 PM > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I hope not to sound like a broken record here ... but ... not every >> >narrow AI advance is actually a step toward AGI ... >> >> It is if AGI is billions of narrow experts and a distributed index to get >> your messages to the right ones. >> >> I understand your objection that it is way too expensive ($1 quadrillion), >> even if it does pay for itself. I would like to be proved wrong... > > > IMO, that would be a very interesting AGI, yet not the **most** interesting > kind due to its primarily heterarchical nature ... the human mind has this > sort of self-organized, widely-distributed aspect, but also a more > centralized, coordinated control aspect. I think an AGI which similarly > combines these two aspects will be much more interesting and powerful. For > instance, your proposed AGI would have no explicit self-model, and no > capacity to coordinate a large percentage of its resources into a single > deliberative process..... It's much like what Francis Heyllighen envisions > as the "Global Brain." Very interesting, yet IMO not the way to get the > maximum intelligence out of a given amount of computational substrate... > > > ben g > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
