3 ms·
Not about AGI. We understand enough to formulate questions about narrow "AI," certainly, since that already exists in a narrow sense.
by argonaut 10y ago
Not about AGI. We understand enough to formulate questions about narrow "AI," certainly, since that already exists in a narrow sense.
- kobeya 10y agoIn case you were not aware, we have about a decade of conferences on the specific topic of Artificial General Intelligence. Many of the papers from that conference provide valuable insights into the capabilities and limits of various approaches to solving specific general-intelligence problems. You might find articles from the past conferences interesting: http://agi-conference.org/ http://agi-conference.org/ There is also the Advances in Cognitive Systems journal and associated conference, which is AGI even if they prefer to avoid that specific acronym: http://www.cogsys.org/ http://www.cogsys.org/ And there are always a small but growing number of papers related to AGI in each AAAI conference.
- argonaut 10y ago1. Just because something has been published as a paper, does not mean it is applicable, says something interesting (even if theoretical), or even that it's actually correct (it just can't be obviously wrong). 2. Setting aside cogsys (CogSci is a whole different beast than AI/ML in computer science), the only impactful journal/conference you've listed is AAAI. 3. Papers are also typically incremental and all of the AGI papers I've seen in AAAI (and there have been very few) are no different, tackling some small theoretical subproblem. 4. I'm not saying the research is useless. It's very valuable. But it's is pure theory right now, and to claim it has insights for us about what AGI would actually look like is very premature.