Matt wrote:
> I think the source of our disagreement is the "I" in "RSI". What does it > mean to improve? From Ben's OpenCog roadmap (see > http://www.opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime:Roadmap ) I think it is clear > that Ben's definition of improvement is Turing's definition of AI: "more > like a human". In this case, AGI can never be achieved because nothing can > be more like a human than a human. No, this is not my definition of improvement. Achieving human-level, roughly human-like AGI is just a preliminary, early stage along my R&D path ;-) > > > My definition of improvement is in terms of goal achievement. If you allow > that goal achievement depends on knowledge, and that algorithmic complexity > bounds knowledge, then I think it is clear that RSI is not possible in a > closed system because information can't come from nowhere. I don't think closed systems are particularly relevant. And I don't agree that algorithmic information is the best way to define knowledge, as I explained in detail in my earlier refutation of your attempted debunking of RSI. > > A third possibility is to extend the intuitive idea of human intelligence > development in Ben's roadmap: artificial toddler -> child -> adult -> > scientist. But I am not sure where this leads. None of us can be sure. > Peering over the event horizon, perhaps it continues -> transhuman -> gray > goo. Or maybe the more familiar -> retired -> dead. The limitations of your imagination are striking ;-p -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
