From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 14 2003 - 23:02:51 MDT
James Rogers wrote:
> I think it is quite rational to assume that there is only one theoretical
> solution in the general abstract. With respect to real
> implementations, the
> efficacy of a particular design will drop quite rapidly as
> approximations of the
> theoretical ideal become poorer. Therefore, I would say that it
> is a reasonable
> assumption that all high-efficacy designs will look quite similar
> to each other.
> Yes, there is a huge range of qualitatively different solutions
> that will work
> in theory. But given finite resource limitations, most of these
> solutions will
> be essentially worthless when competing with high-efficacy designs. Most
> functional differences between high-efficacy AGIs will be window dressing.
> So to put it another way: You can design a theoretically viable
> AGI in any
> number of ways, but when you throw IQ/$ into the equation (a real-world
> viability factor) one type of AGI design will completely
> overshadow all others.
> Unless, of course, all the competing designs really suck (i.e.
> the prevailing
> market at the moment).
Yes, I understood what you were saying before!
But, you did not give any argument in favor of your hypothesis, and I don't
understand why you feel this statement to be true.
Do you have any communicable justification for your belief in this regard??
-- Ben G
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT