--- Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Helen Keller at ~8 didn't have language, as she > hadn't > > learned sign language and there was no other real > > means for her to learn grammar and sentence > structure. > > Yet she was still clearly intelligent. If > Babelfish > > was perfect- could pick up on every single > grammatical > > detail and nuance- would it start learning French > > cooking or write a novel or learn how to drive or > do > > any of that other stuff we associate with > > intelligence. > > No, but as long as you define intelligence as > "exactly like a human" we will > never have AGI. I don't care if my calculator > doesn't know how many fingers I > am holding up.
That's exactly my point- intelligence in general is not "exactly like a human", and many if not most human characteristics, including language and vision, are not necessary to develop AGI. So what exactly have we been arguing about? Oh, and the idea wasn't that the AGI would perfectly replicate every human behavior, it's that it could learn human behavior if it wanted to, without knowing it beforehand and without having it programmed in. Such an AGI could, of course, learn a bazillion other behaviors, but humans are the most obvious example. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > 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/?&; > ____________________________________________________________________________________Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz ----- 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/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
