John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

Re:John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general int... by marcus_holmes on Thursday November 14, 2019 @08:42AM (#21535258)

But in this classification, isn't "general intelligence" just a meta-single-problem-solver, solving the problem of which single purpose solver to bring to bear on this task?

I think I think, but might I just be using a single problem solver that gives the appearance of thinking?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general int... by arethuza on Thursday November 14, 2019 @09:10AM (#21535431)

I suspect the way we think in terms of clear symbols and inference isn't actually how we think but a means of providing a post-hoc narrative to ourselves in a linguistic form.

Edit: Which kind of explains the failure of good-old fashioned symbolic AI as it was modelling the wrong thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general int... by marcus_holmes on Thursday November 14, 2019 @10:25AM (#21536085)

That makes a lot of sense. An internal narrator on events explaining them to the passenger, rather than the driver of said events.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general int... by arethuza on Thursday November 14, 2019 @10:39AM (#21536216)

Definitely not my idea though - couldn't find any good references to where I read about that idea.

[NB I worked in good-old-fashioned AI for a number of years]

[ Parent | on HN ]