3 ms·

There's no such thing as "AGI for the sake of AGI itself". AGI is synthetic and its goals are synthetic, it doesn't want anything that you didn't tell/construct

• mkaic 4y ago
  This is very much up for debate and falls squarely into the "Philosophical opinions" category I'd say. Personally, I disagree that AGI would be any less capable of "real" goals than humans — but I'm also a staunch believer in the Turing Test as a standard of machine sentience, which I think serves as a pretty clear sign of my own philosophical biases.
• slowmovintarget 4y ago
  By definition, AI without intent or understanding is not AGI. It's why there's a qualification to the term, because the old term "AI" was hijacked to mean the statistical mimicry we have today. AGI by example: R. Daneel Olivaw, or the Minds in the Culture novels.
• adaml_623 4y ago
  What's a human child then. My experience is that they develop their own goals quite quickly (although obviously their goals are limited by their knowledge)
• naasking 4y ago
  > it doesn't want anything that you didn't tell/construct it to want. This is not correct. You can, in principle, construct a system with a set of random values, as but one proof by counterexample. Another is an AI that is created as a blank slate learning agent with various feedback systems, and through interactions, it develops its own worldview. You didn't specifically construct it to want anything specific but it's "experiences" will shape it's future wants and thus behaviour.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]