From: Richard Loosemore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 29 2006 - 17:39:00 MST
Patrick Crenshaw wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Richard Loosemore <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Huh? You don't need a PhD. in all of those subjects!
>> It would certainly help to be well-rounded, but it is crazy to require a
>> Ph.D. in (e.g.) M-Theory. Heck, a couple of undergrad physics courses
>> and a dose of Brian Greene ought to be enough.
> A dose of Brian Greene is just about useless. What could be very
> useful for AGI is statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
You missed my point somewhat. An AGI programmer would need no *more*
knowledge of M-theory than they would get from Brian Greene, but they
would need at least a couple of physics courses to (as you say)
understand what thermodynamics (etc) was about, and what the scientific
method was all about.
But honestly, this entire thread is getting a little nonsensical.
Are we talking about AGI programmers who are expected to invent new
understanding of the problems? Someone who can shape the way that
future generations think about AGI design? Someone who might be the
Newton of AGI research?
If that is the aim, the discussion becomes a joke. That person will
find you (if they can be bothered).
And if not, then you we talking about people who either (a) could be
hired by such a person to build a system of their design, or (b) could
understand that person's ideas well enough to develop the ideas further
and lead sub-teams to implement the design.
Nobody seems clear which of these categories are being discussed.
And, on top of that, the SIAI prescription (or the Eliezer prescription,
to be more exact .... are these distinct?) is for a very particular
approach to AGI design (heavily based in mathematics) that at least some
people think is extremely unlikely to result in any kind of working AGI,
regardless of who you hire to build it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT