4 ms·
> An entire human development up to the age of intelligence you are looking for I've also found the lack of development time consideration a weakness in the AG
by gloriousduke 11y ago
> An entire human development up to the age of intelligence you are looking for
I've also found the lack of development time consideration a weakness in the AGI literature I've read. We can create intelligent humans now, but it takes not only reproduction, but immersion in our world and societies for something like 12-18 years for a fully intelligent agent to emerge. Maybe if some future DeepMind algorithms could inhabit a complex world like you find in Skyrim for a decade or two, you'd get something interesting.
- whitegrape 11y agoYou must be reading different AGI literature than me. More generally Embodied/Unembodied AGI has been a common discussion theme for a long time, just as much as the theme of what the right mix is for supervised/unsupervised learning / a priori knowledge. For instance here's a random Goertzel paper from 12 years ago: http://www.goertzel.org/papers/PostEmbodiedAI_June7.htm http://www.goertzel.org/papers/PostEmbodiedAI_June7.htm Perhaps the missing focus on timetables for embodied agents to reach human-level or beyond is annoying (such a timetable is not present in that paper) but to have that timetable problem to begin with would be great since we'd have already solved the much harder problem of creating something that can learn and generalize extremely well within an environment, even if it takes it 12-18 years to reach a sufficient level to be interesting. No matter how many years it takes, so long as we're certain it will get there in some number of years, the problem is greatly simplified to one of hardware and software optimization. So not that interesting by itself.