Ben Goertzel:> Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No
serious> researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point?
Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and it's
regrettable but it was either that or start taking blood pressure medic
Richard Loosemore:> I am only saying that I see no particular limitations,
given the things > that I know about how to buld an AGI. That is the best I can
do.
Sorry to flood everybody's mailbox today; I will make this my last message.
I'm not looking to impose a viewpoint on anybody; you have c
Richard Loosemore:> I am not sure I understand.> > There is every reason to
think that "a currently-envisionable AGI would > be millions of times "smarter"
than all of humanity put together."> > Simply build a human-level AGI, then get
it to bootstrap to a level of, > say, a thousand times human
Samantha Atkins writes:
> Beware the wish granting genie conundrum.
Yeah, you put it better than I did; I'm not asking what wishes we'd ask a genie
to grant, I'm wondering specifically what we want from the machines that Ben
and Richard and Matt and so on are thinking about and building.
Si
I asked:> Imagine we have an "AGI". What exactly does it do? What *should* it
do?
Note that I think I roughly understand Matt's vision for this: roughly, it is
google, and it will gradually get better at answering questions and taking
commands as more capable systems are linked in to the net
Matt Mahoney writes:> Just what do you want out of AGI? Something that thinks
like a person or> something that does what you ask it to?
I think this is an excellent question, one I do not have a clear answer to
myself, even for my own use.
Imagine we have an "AGI". What exactly does it do? Wh
Matt Mahoney writes:> > Super-google is nifty, but I don't see how it is AGI.>
> Because a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to>
experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow> domains
of expertise. All of this can be done with existing technology>
Matt Mahoney writes:> As for AGI research, I believe the most viable path is a
distributed> architecture that uses the billions of human brains and computers>
already on the Internet. What is needed is an infrastructure that> routes
information to the right experts and an economy that rewards> i
I would think an investor would want a believable specific answer to the
following question:
"When and how will I get my money back?"
It can be uncertain (risk is part of the game), but you can't just wave your
hands around on that point. As to why sympathetic rich people are apparently
n
Matt Mahoney writes:> Landauer used tests like having people look at thousands
of photos, then> tested them by having them look at more photos (some seen
before, some novel)> and asking if they have seen them before.
On the face of it, this only measures one very narrow set of what a person
"
This message is "semi-serious".
The latest SIAI blog laments the apparently dismissive attitude of mainstream
media toward the singularity summit (and presumably the concept in general,
and SIAI itself by extension). Maybe it's not the worst thing thing that
could happen.
Consider the war
11 matches
Mail list logo
