= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on No Universally Compelling Arguments in Math or Science - 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 (227)
I am not equivocating. By "successful" I don't mean (or exclude) good-at-things, I mean it is actually artificial, general and intelligent.
"Strong AI is hypothetical artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence — the intelligence of a machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.[1] It is a primary goal of artificial intelligence research and an important topic for science fiction writers and futurists. Strong AI is also referred to as "artificial general intelligence"[2] or as the ability to perform "general intelligent action."[3] ".
To be good-at-things an agent has to be at least instrumentally rational, but that is in no way a ceiling.
Since there are effective humans, I can.
Right, in exactly the same way that because there are square quadrilaterals I can prove that if something is a quadrilateral its area is exactly L^2 where L is the length of any of its sides.
I can't define rational as "effective and human like"?
You can, if you want to claim that the only likely result of AGI research is a humanlike AI. At which point I would point at actual AI research which doesn't work like that at all.
It's failures are idiots,not evil genii