4 ms·
I think that misunderstands the article (a forgivable offense: it is very long). tl;dr: AGI is possible, but we're going about it all wrong and won't create it
by oppositereally 12y ago
I think that misunderstands the article (a forgivable offense: it is very long).
tl;dr: AGI is possible, but we're going about it all wrong and won't create it until we philosophically understand it.
- IvyMike 12y agoDeutsch discounts the possibility that we create AGI the same way the universe did: as a sum of emergent behaviors honed by an evolutionary process. Nobody developing an AGI is going to code every behavior, line by line. They're going to code an infrastructure within which an AGI could work.
- thom 12y agoThe interesting thing about this is that the AGI will probably have about as good an idea of how its brain works as we do. While I agree this is likely to be the way AGI comes about, I suspect it will impact its ability to improve itself. What are the ramifications of (let's say) human-level intelligence running on different hardware?
- breuleux 12y agoWell, if AGI evolves from infrastructure that naturally fosters intelligence, then it is probable that most intelligence gains are actually a function of better infrastructure. This suggests that individual intelligences are actually dead ends: if a new, better infrastructure comes up, you can't just port an existing AGI to it because the whole of it is organized suboptimally: training a new AGI from scratch will always be faster than to try to improve the old one. It's similar to how new software projects can innovate more easily than existing ones because they don't have legacy burdens.