Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Perhaps you have not read my proposal at
http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html
or don't understand it.
Some of us have read it, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with
Artificial Intelligence. It is a labor-intensive search engine, nothing
more.
I have no idea why you would call it an AI or an AGI. It is not
autonomous, contains no thinking mechanisms, nothing. Even as a "alabor
intensive search engine" there is no guarantee it would work, because
the conflict resolution issues are all complexity-governed.
I am astonished that you would so blatantly call it something that it is
not.
It is not now. I think it will be in 30 years. If I was to describe the
Internet to you in 1978 I think you would scoff too. We were supposed to have
flying cars and robotic butlers by now. How could Google make $145 billion by
building an index of something that didn't even exist?
Just what do you want out of AGI? Something that thinks like a person or
something that does what you ask it to?
Either will do: your suggestion achieves neither.
If I ask your non-AGI the following question: "How can I build an AGI
that can think at a speed that is 1000 times faster than the speed of
human thought?" it will say:
"Hi, my name is Ben and I just picked up your question. I would
love to give you the answer but you have to send $20 million
and give me a few years".
That is not the answer I would expect of an AGI. A real AGI would do
original research to solve the problem, and solve it *itself*.
Isn't this, like, just too obvious for words? ;-)
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
