= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (218)
Then I don't think that there is anyone working on what you are envisioning as 'AGI' right now. If a superhuman level of sophistication regarding the potential for self-improvement is already part of your definition then there is no argument to be won or lost here regarding risk assessment of research on AGI. I do not believe this is reasonable or that AGI researchers share your definition. I believe that there is a wide range of artificial general intelligence that does not suit your definition yet deserves this terminology.
Who said anything about a superhuman level of sophistication? Human-level is enough. I'm reasonably certain that if I had the same advantages an AGI would have - that is, if I were converted into an emulation and given my own source code - then I could foom. And I think any reasonably skilled computer programmer could, too.
Debugging will be PITA. Both ways.