|
I Compleanni di Oggi |
۰ Oggi non si puo' festeggiare nessuno...
|
|
|
Anno : 47
Sesso : Maschio
Data di Nascita : 04/08/47
Film Preferito : Matrix Revolution
Canzone/Artista Preferito/a : Musica Antica Tibetana
Comune : _____________________________________________________________________________
Nome : A.G.I.
Descrizione :
Hi,
Personally my inclination is to stick with the name ''AI'' or some
permutation thereof due to its general recognizability.
Even though when you decompose it into the two words ''artificial'' and
''intelligence'' some of the connotations aren't quite right;
nevertheless, the word has acquired so many associations on its own,
most of them correct. When you say ''true AI'' or ''real AI'' to someone
they always know what you mean...
I continue to like AGI = Artificial General Intelligence
The AAAI has adopted Human-Level Intelligence as a fashionable term
lately, but I believe that is too limiting (though it's a good sign by
contrast to their usual focus on narrow AI)
-- Ben
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if i am eligible to suggest alternative names
> for AI or not but here are some suggestions for names (just
> pure brainstorming for fun.)
>
> heuristic intelligence, thinking machines, inorganic
> intelligence, algorithmic intelligence, intelligent systems,
> thinking systems, reasoning systems, mentalics (i guess
> asimov coined this term),
>
> With regards,
> -shailesh
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004
>
>
:: GUARDA I COMMENTI ::
|
QUESTA PAGINA E' STATA VISITATA 0 VOLTA.
|
|
Messaggio automatico a A.G.I. :.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iteressi di A.G.I. :.
|
Non è stato specificato
nessun tipo di interesse.
|
|
|
Dove trovi A.G.I. :.
|
● Discoteche : < Non specificato >
● Pubs : < Non specificato >
● Concerti : < Non specificato >
● Cinema : < Non specificato >
● Feste: < Non specificato >
● Raves: < Non specificato >
● Raduni: < Non specificato >
● Festa del Paese: < Non specificato >
● Lunapark : < Non specificato >
● Gare sportive: < Non specificato >
|
|
|
Invia una cartolina a A.G.I. :.
|
|
|
|
|
Indice di affinità con A.G.I. :.
|
● Affinità tra i vostri interessi :
● Affinità tra i posti che frequentate :
|
Funzione abilitata
SOLO dopo il Login!
|
|
| Laciato da |
Commenti |
A.G.I.
2004-07-05 12:28:10
|
> I don't think one needs to become as big as Microsoft or IBM to fund AGI
> research very amply, however. I think AGI is best done by a small,
> tightly focused team, with ongoing feedback from a larger group of
> loosely affiliated scientists. If I had enough research funding to pay
> for, say 10-15 full-time AGI scientists engineers to work on *nothing
> but AGI*, then I'd consider this adequate to bring us to AGI.
I agree that 10-15 may be enough, but on the premise that
all of them are working on the -same model-. If you take
into consideration that we're still in dispute about what
the top-level model should be like, the best way may be to
have a number of teams exploring different models.
> Having a
> lot of people and a lot of money brings its own problems, including a
> lot of bureaucratic and managerial overhead. I don't now have enough
> funding to pay for such an AGI R e D team, and I hope to generate this
> money through my AI business ventures. But in the context of the US
> business world this requires a relatively modest amount of money, not
> M$-style market domination. For example, a $1 million annual budget for
> Novamente AGI research would be more than adequate.
I'm currently thinking of a different business model: To
concentrate on AGI research and then license the technology
to software developers such as M$. In this way we can unburden
ourselves of a lot of troubles. I think this is a better biz
model and you may consider it for your own =)
> So anyway, it's not that I don't have an interest in money. It's that I
> think I have a realistic assessment of how much money is required for a
> maximally productive AGI team. Beyond a certain size, adding people to
> an AGI project will diminish rather than increase productivity.
My suggestion is whether we can unburden ourselves of some
irrelevant concerns such as implementation, hardware, managing
patents, or marketing. I think there'll probably be a few
things that many of us *here* are not interested in, and other
people are better suited to do the job.
> And, history shows that big companies are not that good at getting
> highly innovative research done. Even Microsoft, with its culture of
> intelligence and productivity, hasn't really gotten that much out of its
> investment in Microsoft Research. Useful stuff, but nothing mindblowing
> ... Whereas the world outside M$ has certainly conceived a lot of wild
> and interesting things over the same time-period that M$ Research has
> existed...
They're a company who can throw $millions on a project and
don't think twice about it. I think AGI will not happen in a
vaccuum, and it will depend on a lot of interactions.
> Finally, I see the role of an AGI Consortium as being
>
> -- the promotion of AGI R e D
> -- the development of tools generally useful for AGI development
> -- the pursuit of AGI-oriented or closely related research not
> specifically tied to one or another AGI software system
>
> As I said before I don't think an AGI Consortium should be thought of as
> a profit-making enterprise...
I agree with the goals you stated, though I think those
services should be paid. One thing that it may do is to
help manage IP for researchers, sometimes our results are
not big enough for filing a patent but when several results
are combined they may be. Sharing an IP management team
may benefit all of us especially because software IP is
very complicated these days.
BTW thanks for your understanding, I guess I sounded very
paranoid...
YKY
|
Alessia
2004-07-06 10:01:40
|
Ciao AGI, penso di aver capito chi sei:
Ben, I hope you are going to keep a human in the loop.
Human in the loop scenario:
The alpha Novamente makes a suggestion about some change to its software.
The human implements the change on the beta Novamente running on a separate machine, and tests it.
If it seems to be an improvement, it is incorporated into the alpha Novamente.
Human not in the loop scenario:
The Novamente looks at its code.
The Novamente makes changes to its code, and reboots itself.
The Novamente looks at its code.
The Novamente makes changes to its code, and reboots itself.
The Novamente looks at its code.
The Novamente makes changes to its code, and reboots itself.
The humans wonder what the hell is going on.
Mike Deering.
|
|
|
| PENSIERI IN LIBERTA)
Guarda le foto pubblicate su nonSoloCuneo da A.G.I.)
