Resending: this message never made it to the list.
On 2019-02-04 19:41:PM, TimTyler wrote:
On 2019-02-03 18:28:PM, [email protected] wrote:
I think all of the theoretical calculations of processing power are
widely off the mark – we’re not trying to reverse-engineer a bird –
just need to build a flying machine.
That doesn't sound like a fair criticism of Matt's calculations. In
January,
Matt wrote here: "I don't believe we need to replicate the physics of the
brain for AGI any more than an airplane needs to be an artificial bird.
We study birds and create something better."
His sums aren't based on human brain capabilities, but rather on what
humans know that relates to doing their jobs. IMO, it would be fairer
to argue
that machines won't do the exact same work as humans by the time they take
over most of the economy, so they won't need the same knowledge - and/or
that they will have other ways of acquiring knowledge besides learning
from human typed or spoken output.
--
__________
|im |ylerhttp://timtyler.org/
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Ta6fce6a7b640886a-M1580d08d52a09232fadd0af7
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
