RE: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
The term Artificial General Intelligence was introduced to me by Shane Legg, when we were discussing possible titles for the "Real AI" (now "AGI") edited volume. [Shane worked at Webmind Inc., and later at A2I2, and will shortly be joining IDSR in Switzerland to work with Marcus Hutter on algorithmic-information-theoretic approaches to AGI.] Whether Shane got invented it himself, or got it from Peter Voss or somebody else, I don't know. I heard the term out of Pei Wang's mouth plenty of times, though I'm not sure he ever used it in print. And the term was used in print before I met Shane or Pei or Peter... For example, this paper by Mark Gubrud from 1997 http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.html uses the term repeatedly, in basically the same sense we're using it now. I would bet he was not the first to use it either... -- Ben Goertzel > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"? > > > Was it Ben Goertzel or Peter Voss who first coined the term "Artificial > General Intelligence"? > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > > --- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate > your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
I don't know who coined the term AGI, but since in the psychological study
of human intelligence (e.g., IQ test and so on), the so-called "general
factor" has been discussed for many years by many people, it is quite
natural to introduce the concept into AI.
Though I do use the term AGI in discussions to prevent misunderstanding, I
never use it in publication, because I believe "AI" should mean "AGI", not
"ASI" ("Artificial Specialized Intelligence"). Of course I know most people
in the field won't agree with me. :-(
Pei
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
>
> The term Artificial General Intelligence was introduced to me by Shane
Legg,
> when we were discussing possible titles for the "Real AI" (now "AGI")
edited
> volume. [Shane worked at Webmind Inc., and later at A2I2, and will
shortly
> be joining IDSR in Switzerland to work with Marcus Hutter on
> algorithmic-information-theoretic approaches to AGI.]
>
> Whether Shane got invented it himself, or got it from Peter Voss or
somebody
> else, I don't know.
>
> I heard the term out of Pei Wang's mouth plenty of times, though I'm not
> sure he ever used it in print.
>
> And the term was used in print before I met Shane or Pei or Peter...
>
> For example, this paper by Mark Gubrud from 1997
>
> http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.html
>
> uses the term repeatedly, in basically the same sense we're using it now.
>
> I would bet he was not the first to use it either...
>
> -- Ben Goertzel
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:26 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
> >
> >
> > Was it Ben Goertzel or Peter Voss who first coined the term "Artificial
> > General Intelligence"?
> >
> > --
> > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
> > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate
> > your subscription,
> > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
> please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
As I remember it, Ben wanted to write a book focused on AI that wasn't domain specific and was wanting to call it "Real AI". I said that would most likely just turn off non-"Real AI" people as it bluntly implied that what they are doing isn't worthwhile. I suggested that we needed something much more boring and serious sounding and Ben agreed that it might be a good idea. I made a few suggestions, in particular I suggested artificial general intelligence or AGI for short. It appeared to be the most straight forward label for what Ben had in mind. I'd never heard it used before and figured that it might already be in use so I did a search on the internet but couldn't find anything. After a kind of email show-of-hands on the Real AI book email list (which Ben, Peter and I think yourself? were on) the term AGI was decided to be the best label for our purposes and has since stuck. Cheers Shane Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: Was it Ben Goertzel or Peter Voss who first coined the term "Artificial General Intelligence"? --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
> Though I do use the term AGI in discussions to prevent misunderstanding, I
> never use it in publication, because I believe "AI" should mean "AGI", not
> "ASI" ("Artificial Specialized Intelligence"). Of course I know
> most people
> in the field won't agree with me. :-(
>
> Pei
I guess most AI researchers consider AI to be inclusive of AGI and ASI.
That's Ok with me ... ASI is interesting too, though quite different, and
currently overemphasized...
My (least) favorite definition of AI is in Luger's AI text. He defines AI
as "that which AI researchers do."
Hmmm...
-- Ben G
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
- Original Message - From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:38 PM Subject: RE: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"? > I guess most AI researchers consider AI to be inclusive of AGI and ASI. > That's Ok with me ... ASI is interesting too, though quite different, and > currently overemphasized... I'd rather use more concrete (and more informative) terms for the "ASIs", such as search, reason, vision, planning, pattern recognition, and so on --- if there is no common factor identified among them, to call them "AI" collectively doesn't add much information. Actually this is what has happened in the history of AI, that is, whenever a subfield becomes mature enough, most people stop using the label "AI" in it. It will continue to be the case until a "general factor" is identified. It is only at that time then AI can be claimed to be a branch of science for its own sake, not a fancy label to be attached to a group of things that have little in common, except being "that which AI researchers do." Pei > My (least) favorite definition of AI is in Luger's AI text. He defines AI > as "that which AI researchers do." > > Hmmm... > > -- Ben G > > > --- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"?
Well, I agree that the current field of AI is way too broadly defined. It's a heck of a grab-bag. But I think there is more meaning to "AI in general" than "A little AGI plus a lot of computer science" or "What AI researchers do." I'd break up the AI field into 4 categories as follows: 1) AGI 2) Domain-specialized learning software. These are software programs that carry out learning or goal-oriented self-organization in some particular domain 3) Emulations of human intelligent behavior. These are software programs that emulate activities that for humans involve significant learning or complex cognition; but the programs themselves don't do any learning, they're just ordinary, rigidly-behaving computer programs 4) Emulations of human perception and action in the absence of cognition, or software carrying out perception or action in the absence of cognition -- e.g. computer vision, robotics, etc. "Narrow AI" consists of categories 2 and 3, which are quite different animals, however. Note that a program gets into categories 1 or 2 because its internal activities are viewed as intelligent. A program gets in category 3 because its external behavior is viewed as intelligent. In category 2 I'd put: a program that learns how to drive a car, or a program that predicts the stock market by building adaptive models These programs have some intelligence but it's very narrowly focused. There are indeed a lot of commonalities among various narrow AI programs in this category. There is a real science of narrowly-specialized learning; it's not all domain-dependent tricks. Statistical learning theory is part of this science, but not all of it. On the other hand, programs in category 3 don't have many commonalities amongst each other. The problem is that there really are few commonalities among different programs that do things that, for humans, require intelligence. It seems very arbitrary which programs in category 3 are categorized as AI and which are not. Why is a calculator not AI? It carries out activities that require a lot of intelligence in humans? Why are computer algebra systems like Maple less "AI-ish" than GraphPlan, which is arguably less sophisticated, less "intelligent"...? Category 3 is where AI basically merges freely into "advanced algorithmics." Category 4, on the other hand, really doesn't have that much to do with "intelligence." It's advanced algorithmics, modeling or emulating interesting biological behaviors. To the extent that these biological behaviors relate to cognition, it may be related to AI; but so are a lot of other things related to AI... I think there's a decent argument for the existence of an AI discipline inclusive of my categories 1 and 2: AGI plus domain-specialized learning software. On the other hand, throwing in bits and pieces of 3 and 4 makes things very loosely-defined: one could really throw in about half of the computer science curriculum, and which items in 3 and 4 are considered AI versus non-AI is basically a matter of historical accident... -- Ben G > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Pei Wang > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"? > > > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:38 PM > Subject: RE: [agi] Q: Who coined "AGI"? > > > I guess most AI researchers consider AI to be inclusive of AGI and ASI. > > That's Ok with me ... ASI is interesting too, though quite > different, and > > currently overemphasized... > > I'd rather use more concrete (and more informative) terms for the "ASIs", > such as search, reason, vision, planning, pattern recognition, > and so on --- > if there is no common factor identified among them, to call them "AI" > collectively doesn't add much information. Actually this is what has > happened in the history of AI, that is, whenever a subfield becomes mature > enough, most people stop using the label "AI" in it. It will > continue to be > the case until a "general factor" is identified. It is only at that time > then AI can be claimed to be a branch of science for its own sake, not a > fancy label to be attached to a group of things that have little > in common, > except being "that which AI researchers do." > > Pei > > > My (least) favorite definition of AI is in Luger's AI text. He > defines AI > > as "that which AI researchers do." > > > > Hmmm... > > > > -- Ben G >
