Re: AI and Moore's Law redux

From: Emil Gilliam (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 22:35:28 MST

On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 10:17 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

> hey there,
>> My attempt at a somewhat-new question is:
>> How could some preeminent scientists, in this day and age, defend the
>> notion that existing computer power (or even a lot less than it),
>> combined with some rather simple but undiscovered programming
>> technique,
>> would be sufficient for general intelligence?
> My own belief is a little bit off from this, but not so far off.
> I believe that existing computer power is adequate for general
> intelligence,
> and that what is required is a *not all that simple* design (I wouldn't
> call
> it a "programming technique").
> I also think that computers of 10 years ago, if not *quite* adequate for
> human-level general intelligence, would have been adequate for a lot
> *more*
> general intelligence than they were ever made to manifest.
> I think the idea that there's a single simple trick for realising AGI
> (artificial general intelligence) is a fallacy. I think that
> intelligence
> requires the integration of a fair number of tricks in a mutually
> interadapted
> way so as to give rise to the emergent structures of intelligence.

Either way, I am definitely awaiting Wolfram's new book (expected in
March) to see what he has to say about it! (Have you looked at yet?) Some of the publisher's claims about the book
sound rather grandiose to me, and the only reason I tolerate these is
because, heck, he's Stephen Wolfram. :>

WHen I do get my hands on it, though, I'll be relentlessly critical (in
the good sense of the term).

Since Wolfram's obviously spent a lot of time over his career thinking
about AI, why not send him a free copy of "Real AI" when it comes out? :)

- Emil

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT