4 ms·
> if we only care about the outcome and the utility of the AGI, and don't expect it to be fully "human like" I'm not even sure whether that's a meaningful dist
by wlievens 13y ago
> if we only care about the outcome and the utility of the AGI, and don't expect it to be fully "human like"
I'm not even sure whether that's a meaningful distinction. Searle's Chinese Room et cetera.
I'm with you in the wing analogy, I fully agree. I just don't think Watson or Deep Blue is a significant approach even in that direction.
Human-like or not, we have certain expectations from our hypothetical AGI in terms of the kind of new problems it can solve without too much help. I guess what it mean is: I think it needs to be able to solve a problem it wasn't designed upfront to solve. No serious system I've ever seen attempts to do that.
- mindcrime 13y agoI guess what it mean is: I think it needs to be able to solve a problem it wasn't designed upfront to solve. No serious system I've ever seen attempts to do that. Fair enough. :-)
- mietek 13y agoThe Chinese Room argument is unconvincing. The man in the room may not understand Chinese, but he is using a dictionary, which to a casual observer appears suspiciously thick. Just how thick would the dictionary need to be in order to provide a sensible response for all possible lines of enquiry? Searle's argument reduces a room which understands Chinese to a dictionary which understands Chinese. A strange loop indeed. With regard to serious systems attempting to solve AGI — are you aware of Jeff Hawkins' work on hierarchical temporal memory?
- wlievens 13y agoI'm not saying I necessarily support Searle's position. I do think it's an interesting thought experiment. To be honest, if it quacks and walks, I'm not one who'll be arguing that it isn't sapient. I haven't followed any recent research, sorry.