3 ms·

> Because specialised systems are a subset of AGI (in the sense that GI is capable of producing them), hence AGI is seen as the ultimate goal. I don't think on

> Because specialised systems are a subset of AGI (in the sense that GI is capable of producing them), hence AGI is seen as the ultimate goal. I don't think one necessarily follows from the other though. We might be able to make an AGI with the intelligence of a human teenager. That doesn't necessarily mean it would be better at driving a truck than a more specialized algorithm. > That would probably mean testing machine learning systems with something like Turing tests which no one is doing or advocating. I see a lot of people complaining that various machine learning techniques won't lead to AGI and would never create a system which could pass the Turing test. Even this article laments that neural nets don't actually resemble human cognition.

olalonde 10y ago
> I don't think one necessarily follows from the other though. We might be able to make an AGI with the intelligence of a human teenager. That doesn't necessarily mean it would be better at driving a truck than a more specialised algorithm. I agree that an AGI wouldn't necessarily be good at driving trucks. I meant it in the sense that an AGI would be capable of producing the "truck driving algorithm" (if we humans can do it, the AGI can do it too, almost by definition). > I see a lot of people complaining that various machine learning techniques won't lead to AGI and would never create a system which could pass the Turing test. Most of the complaining seems geared towards media and outsiders who portray X technique as being the "Solution to AGI", not towards the techniques themselves.