_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:How do nematode worms (most of the multi-cellular life on this rock) contribute to achieve this teleonomic purpose (making AGI)?

Since researchers are not omniscient of how to compose the outcome and since computers are not yet at human level power traditionally, they approach research from elementary angles (i.e. celegans or somewhat general models such as Deep Learning algorithms), see how those attempts work, and build towards the goal.

Keep It Real wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah chew toy...feels good dunnit Thomas...fresh flesh hehehe

Cito di Pense wrote:

_exit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

_exit wrote:Also, as far as we can see, humans are things with quite profound general intelligence (See Wikipedia Neuroscience), so we base AGI's research goal on that outcome, although we still refer to other intelligences on the way to human like outcome.

Don't ever forget (and you can bet I won't let you!) that humans are the ones defining or evaluating what 'profound' and 'intelligence' denote. You'd have to stipulate that humans are already intelligent enough to define those words rigorously, rather than philosophically. See also, purpose and teleonomy. If all you have is an argument made by (only some) humans, the arrogance of the thread title does not escape me.

Recall that the hypothesis occurs on science, the best tool human has to objectively describe the cosmos.

Are you saying I am "ignorant" to be relying on science? That reminds me of theistic behaviour!

Perhaps you might consider taking a step back. You're making exorbitant general claims about a field (AI) that is overflowing with hype. That your exorbitant claims are increasingly vague is not helping to ameliorate the situation.

I don't think you're relying on science at all. I think you're worshiping it.

_exit wrote:
What exorbitant claims did I supposedly make about AGI?

Are you saying contrary to what the laws of physics indicate, AGI/ASI is supposedly impossible?

laklak wrote:We need to concentrate on building some organic human intelligence. It's in short supply.

Corneel wrote:Is AGI desirable? Friend Computer comes to mind.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Corneel wrote:Is AGI desirable? Friend Computer comes to mind.

Then I can go to my shrink computer and whine that my friend computer says it finds me tedious and pointless. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if it didn't just roll over and go to sleep after we have sex.

Corneel wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Corneel wrote:Is AGI desirable? Friend Computer comes to mind.

Then I can go to my shrink computer and whine that my friend computer says it finds me tedious and pointless. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if it didn't just roll over and go to sleep after we have sex.

I'm not talking about your friend computer. I'm talking about Friend Computer. Friend Computer is your Protector and Friend. Friend Computer wants you to be happy. Failure to be happy is Treason. Are you happy, citizen?

Have a nice day cycle!

Corneel wrote:Is AGI desirable? Friend Computer comes to mind.

Keep It Real wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah chew toy...feels good dunnit Thomas...fresh flesh hehehe

Cito di Pense wrote:

_exit wrote:
What exorbitant claims did I supposedly make about AGI?

Are you saying contrary to what the laws of physics indicate, AGI/ASI is supposedly impossible?

Well, of course, AGI/ASI is possible, if you define it the right way. Didn't we start out with the grandiose definition that AGI was a device that could perform ANY human cognitive task? We don't even know what all of those tasks might be, which is why someone is asking whether what we want to simulate is a 1950s human or a 1970s human. In the latter case, we should skip dressing it in a leisure suit.

scott1328 wrote:

Corneel wrote:Is AGI desirable? Friend Computer comes to mind.

Who is to say? There has been no reasonable definition of "Intelligence" offered.

_exit wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

Corneel wrote:Is AGI desirable? Friend Computer comes to mind.

Who is to say? There has been no reasonable definition of "Intelligence" offered.

See the Artificial General Intelligence Wikipedia page cited several times in the hypothesis from the OP.

That you failed to read the page, does not suddenly warrant that "no reasonable definition of intelligence offered".

scott1328 wrote:I think it is your claim that creating AGI is the purpose of (human) life that needs defending.