> I don't think any reasonable person in AI or AGI will claim any of these > have been solved. They may want to claim their method has promise, but not > that it has actually solved any of them.
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? Similarly, up till the moment when the first astronauts walked on the moon, you could have run around yelping that "no one has solved the problem of how to make a person walk on the moon, all they've done is propose methods that seem to have promise." It's true -- theories and ideas can always be wrong, and empirical proof adds a whole new level of understanding. (Though, empirical proofs don't exist in a theoretical vacuum, they do require theoretical interpretation. For instance physicists don't agree on which supposed "top quark events" really were top quarks ... and some nuts still don't believe people walked on the moon, just as even after human-level AGI is achieved some nuts still won't believe it...) Nevertheless, with something as complex as AGI you gotta build stuff based on a theory. And not everyone is going to believe the theory until the proof is there. And so it goes... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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
