= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Students asked to defend AGI danger update in favor of AGI riskiness - 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 (38)
That's interesting since my impression if anything is the exact opposite. There seem to be a lot of people trying to apply Bayesian learning systems and expert learning systems to all sorts of different practical problems. I wonder if this is a new thing or whether I simply don't have a good view of the field.
For what it's worth, I consider Bayesian learning systems and expert learning systems to be "narrow" AI -- hence the example I gave of Watson.
I think Ben Goertzel's Novamente project is the closest extant project to a 'general' AI of any form that I've heard of.
I can see that for expert systems, but Bayesian learning systems seem to be a distinct category. The primary limits seem to be scalibility not architecture.
Bayesian learning systems are essentially another form of trainable neural network. That makes them very good in a narrow range of categories but also makes them insufficient to the cause of achieving general intelligence.
I do not see that scaling Bayesian learning networks would ever achieve general intelligence. No matter how big the hammer, it'll never be a wrench. That being said, I do believe that some form of pattern recognition and 'selective forgetting' is important to cognition and as such Bayesian learning architecture is a good tool towards that end.