I think it may be that some people think in an either/or: EITHER we fuse a number of narrow AIs OR we build a general AI from which the narrow AIs emerge later on. Matt, I suspect you are thinking this way.
The third alternative is doing both concurrently. The narrow AIs should be viewed as intrinsically part of, and useless without, the general AI. Whether such a strategy will work or not... who knows? I say it's worth a try. Possibilities have emerged for me when I have envisioned this way. Mike A On 8/9/19, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > What if my program was created by quantum evolutionary learning, and > carries out its predictions while running in an uncollapsed quantum > state, coupled with the classical system reading-out its predictions > in a way that doesn't collapse its internal memory states... > > Then I can set it up so you can't measure what algorithm my program is > running *without collapsing the state, which I could notice* -- and > even if you emulated my process of quantum evolutionary learning, you > couldn't tell what random program it had produced for me. > > So your approach doesn't work for quantum computers... but our > physical universe is a quantum system... > > -- Ben > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 9:08 AM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Suppose you have a simple learner that can predict any computable sequence >> of symbols with some probability at least as good as random guessing. Then >> I can create a simple sequence that your predictor will get wrong 100% of >> the time. My program runs a copy of your program and outputs something >> different from your guess. >> >> All the empirical evidence supports this. Good compressors have a lot of >> code to handle lots of special cases. >> >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 8:15 PM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Legg proved there is no such thing as a simple, universal learner. So we >>>> can stop looking for one. >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear, these algorithmic information theory results don't show >>> there is no such thing as a simple learner that is universal in our >>> physical universe... >>> >>> I'm not saying there necessarily is one, just pointing out that the math >>> is not so practically applicable as your statement implies... >>> >> Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + >> participants + delivery options Permalink > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to > live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same > time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, > burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders > across the stars.” -- Jack Kerouac ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T1ff21f8b11c8c9ae-Mcdcea8c71b1754a292a1417e Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
