Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
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? ;-)
Your question is not well formed. Computers can already think 1000 times
faster than humans for things like arithmetic
You just trivialized the definition of "think" by using it to describe a
pocket calculator as a thinking system. The whole point of the term
"AGI" is that it refers to a general intelligence, not a pocket calculator.
Does your AGI also need to
know how to feed your dog?
No, because I don't have a dog.
Or should it guess and build it anyway?
Excuse me?
I would
think such a system would be dangerous.
A dog-feeding AGI? Chilling, I agree.
I expect a competitive message passing network to improve over time.
I expect the design of design of teapots will improve over time, but I
will never be tempted to conclude that they will therefore become as
intelligent as an AGI.
Early
versions will work like an interactive search engine. You may get web pages
or an answer from another human in real time, and you may later receive
responses to your persistent query. If your question can be matched to an
expert in some domain that happens to be on the net, then it gets routed
there. Google already does this. For example, if you type an address, it
gives you a map and offers driving directions. If you ask it "how many
teaspoons in a cubic parsec?" it will compute the answer (try it). It won't
answer every question, but with 1000 times more computing power than Google, I
expect there will be many more domain experts.
You just fell for the Low-Hanging Fruit Fallacy.
When a computer processes a request like "how many teaspoons in a cubic
parsec?" it can extract the "meaning" of the question by a relatively
simple set of syntactic rules and question templates.
But when you ask it a question like "how many dildos are there on the
planet?" [Try it] you find that google cannot answer this superficially
similar question because it requires more intelligence in the
question-analysis mechanism. The first reply is a web page that starts
off "How many men have fake women’s asses at home?...." and as far as I
can see there are no hits that answer the question.
Just because it can get the low-hanging fruit (the easy-to-parse
questions) does not mean that it is straightforward to get a system that
answers more and more sophisticated questions. There is no reason
whatsoever to assume that increases in hardware or tweaking of search
algorithms will raise the system to the level where it will be able to
answer the question without asking a human.
And if that question is not too much for the system, we can just up the
ante to the one I mentioned before: "How do I build a 1000x AGI"
I expect as hardware gets more powerful, peers will get better at things like
recognizing people in images, writing programs, and doing original research.
"Peers"? People or machines? You are not worried about the possibility
that the number of questions (especially questions like "hey dude, how
can I pull a hot babe?) might exceed the number of experts with the time
to answer them?
I don't claim that I can solve these problems. I do claim that there is an
incentive to provide these services and that the problems are not intractable
given powerful hardware, and therefore the services will be provided.
I submit that you "know" nothing of the sort: the problem of providing
answers to meaningfully difficult questions may well be intractable
given your methods, no matter how much hardware you have.
There
are two things to make the problem easier. First, peers will have access to a
vast knowledge source that does not exist today. Second, peers can specialize
in a narrow domain, e.g. only recognize one particular person in images, or
write software or do research in some obscure, specialized field.
You have clearly do no calculations whatsoever to establish that the
demand for answers can be met by the supply of question-answerers. Have
you even calculated the number of recognizible images in the world, and
the number of people available to be specialists for recognizing each
one? You could use up every single individual on the planet by putting
them all on standby to answer questions involving the recognition of
images, and have nobody left to specialize in questions like "how many
dildos are there on the planet?".
And even then, would the one person on the whole planet who specializes
in the recognition of images of the Otay Mesa variety of tomato spend
all of their waking hours looking at every single tomato image on
google, making decisions about whether or not each image is an instance
of Otay Mesa? They would have to do this to be able to answer "Are
there any images of an Otay Mesa tomato with a hand in the background?".
Is this labor intensive? Yes. A $1 quadrillion system won't just build
itself. People will build it because they will get back more value than they
put in.
"I have a big head and little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan
was thought through." ... "...Master?"
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
