4 ms·

A bunch of classifiers is not an artificial general intelligence. A human-level mind (or beyond) requires a systematic cognitive architecture, it's not going t

A bunch of classifiers is not an artificial general intelligence. A human-level mind (or beyond) requires a systematic cognitive architecture, it's not going to emerge out of a heterogenous, quasi-random soup of mind-components. This is a naive theory of cognitive science, I would argue. For a careful, systematic design for an advanced AI system, see http://opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime http://opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime, which is associated with the open-source AI project opencog.org Anyway, I'm probably one of the biggest optimists in the AI research community, but in my view the idea in this post represents "way over the top" optimism based on a naive view of how mind works. Given a mature version of an AI system built according to an overall AI architecture like OpenCog, then maybe people writing little "mind modules" as you suggest could make sense. But the Internet just is not a "mind operating system." I wrote about what would need to be done to turn the net into more of a mind-OS in my 2001 book "Creating Internet Intelligence" (Plenum Press). At the high level I don't think this is a bad idea. But again, brains are not just soups of heterogenous processes -- the right high-level cognitive architecture is required. -- Ben Goertzel novamente.net agiri.org singinst.org goertzel.org

un 18y ago
I'm trying to draw a parallel between how content on the web is being created and how an artificial mind might be created. If you sat down at tried to engineer a giant encyclopedia within one company/community, you would end up with britannica (within one company), and wikipedia (within a community of enthusiasts), However, the web at large is much larger than both of these because of the economic incentives for people to create articles. Many people try and fail (in effect working for free), but the progress is rapid, as in evolution. In the same way, incentivizing people to produce classifiers would have the similar effect of rapid progress. If you think of intelligence as being the ability to predict accurately, having a giant web of classifiers that predict accurately could be construed as a form of artificial general intelligence, or a human type artificial intelligence. Having an enough data about the world, because you have created many classifiers that can recognize the semantic events in video and speech, would allow you to make all the same types of recognitions and predictions that a human would make.

un 18y ago

I'm trying to draw a parallel between how content on the web is being created and how an artificial mind might be created. If you sat down at tried to engineer a giant encyclopedia within one company/community, you would end up with britannica (within one company), and wikipedia (within a community of enthusiasts), However, the web at large is much larger than both of these because of the economic incentives for people to create articles. Many people try and fail (in effect working for free), but the progress is rapid, as in evolution. In the same way, incentivizing people to produce classifiers would have the similar effect of rapid progress. If you think of intelligence as being the ability to predict accurately, having a giant web of classifiers that predict accurately could be construed as a form of artificial general intelligence, or a human type artificial intelligence. Having an enough data about the world, because you have created many classifiers that can recognize the semantic events in video and speech, would allow you to make all the same types of recognitions and predictions that a human would make.