thoughtfuhk

AlphaZero, the latest variant, can play both chess and go, and it is being prepared for more cognitive tasks. You may have heard that AlphaGo's predecessor, a single reinforcement learning model, could play several atari games, without being reprogrammed by humans. Likewise, AlphaGo Zero is an initial approximation of Artificial General Intelligence. (Remember the whole point is to build more and more general algorithms.) Why? I don't doubt that such a particular point in time may emerge! I tend to detect that Computer Science is a general type of course, that may encompass mathematics, physics/quantum physics, psychology, biology, chemistry etc. In fact, AGI will likely emerge from a combination of multiple disciplines. Here is a recent example by google deepmind et al, that combines several disciplines: Towards deep learning with segregated dendrite. As such, I have a degree in Computer Science and, I seek to contribute to the development of Artificial General Intelligence. Precisely.

It's not merely about processing speed. Here's a scenario that ought to help eliminate your computing speed misconception: The game of go, is one of the hardest human games, with state space of \(10^{170} \). To play go, you either need human intuition or something like a computer the size of the universe to enumerate the possible game states. AlphaGo Zero, an artificial intelligence app, can beat the best human go player, by far. AlphaGo Zero is not the size of the universe. We see here, that its not merely about computing speed, but also cognitive structures such as those enabling human intuition. AlphaGo Zero uses "human like intuition" or cognitive like processes, to reduce the enormous problem space of go, like humans do, because AlphaGo Zero is obviously not a computer the size of the universe! Human intuition is akin to mathematical structures that aim to mirror biological brain function. For example, the notation \(W * x + b\) represents a mathematical or biologically inspired prior in machine learning (i.e. convolutions), or a hyperplane for representing some problem space in terms of artificial neuronal data. Note-1: AlphaGo Zero uses models including Deep Artificial Neural Networks to to play the game of go. (Games are important as test spaces for ai, because games are lower in resolution that real life, hence cheaper to train algorithms on, while offering wide ranges of tasks to test on (to test algorithm generality), and we can safely test ai capabilities in games.) Note 2: And yes, the whole point of AGI is to help humans. However, it is doing so by use of human brain inspired hardware/software applications!

I already gave a suitable answer above. AGI is a discipline whose product may encompass all disciplines, all courses. Postscript: Listen to what PhD Goertzel has to say about AGI:

This thread is concerned with MIT's AGI course, not the purpose of human life. Report at your leisure, albeit. Sorry, that was the wrong link. Correct link: "Artificial Intelligence takes Gene Therapy to the next level". Postscript: I didn't say I was an expert at gene therapy. I simply underlined that Ai may aid in problems involving thinking, which is all problems, including gene issues.

Yes, that AGI may emerge much much later, does not warrant that I was "flattering myself" or being narrow minded about the one particular discipline known as AGI. At least now you've nicely pointed out that AGI is likely merely a matter of time, than a matter of possibility. Postscript: Kurzweil predicts human level AGI by 2029. Postscript-2: It is likely that that new treatment you referred to emerged with the aid of Ai!

Think about this carefully: Narrow Ai/deep artificial neural network powered models can now do individual cognitive tasks. (There's Ai for disease diagnosis that does better than human doctors, Ai for etc etc) General Ai, called AGI, will likely cover the entire landscape of human cognitive ability, when AGI eventually arises. This means it will aid in doing problems involving thinking, which is all problems! Why wouldn't a model that can do all human cognitive tasks better, not classify as mankind's last invention? Don't you recognize that AGI concerns all disciplines?

I find it disappointing that a course concerning perhaps mankind's last invention is hardly known outside of the machine learning community. Why is MIT's Artificial General Intelligence course so weakly known?? Edit: I just noticed another thread of mine was recently closed. Please refrain from discussing that thread here.

Yes, some have certainly disregarded the rules of science; some have constantly confused religion with science. (As I underlined prior).

I can't force you to own up to your errors. It's time to re-evaluate your command of the English language, as far as I detect. Professional writers may make errors too. (Unless they possess omniscience, a property we don't detect to be scientifically feasible!) You ought to own up to your errors. Nitpick: English is not my second language.

Teleonomy does in fact concern purpose in the realm of science rather than religion. Wikipedia/teleonomy: "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention." You persistently misread the sentence above; for that teleonomy contrasts purposeful goal directness, as typically expressed in the realm of teleology wrt divine/human intention, does not mean that teleonomy contrasts purpose/goal directness overall! Why do you think the description opens with: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures .."? Clearly, teleonomy contrasts not merely purpose and goal-directness, but instead, it contrasts purpose and goal-driectness when it comes to typically unevidenced nonsense, such as teleology wrt divine/human intention. You have a ridiculous command of English, and so do your comrades here!

Apparent purpose does not mean that. Ironically, the subsequent sentence means that teleonomy constrasts teleology, where purposeful goal directness is concerned with the divine/human intention. This doesn't mean teleonomy constrasts purpose, it means it contrasts purpose when concerned with teleology! And yet you accuse me of mangling English? Ridiculous! Bender unavoidably mentions that actual purpose is constrained to religion. (i.e. teleonomy doesn't exist!) Quote from Bender: "This is getting repetetive and boring. Please stop misquoting respected scientists. Archeo-purpose is not real purpose, much like teleonomy, which is specifically invented to be able to use purpose-oriented language in the absence of purpose. If you want actual purpose, it is teleology you are looking for." That you are unable to understand basic sentence structure, does not suddenly warrant that I am "unable to understand English" ! That is demonstrably false. Well, it's "correct" if you misread as Strange did. See my underlining of Strange's misunderstanding above.

I am yet to detect any such expressions as valid. What I said is that there exists scientific purpose, namely teleonomy. Others have consistently argued against this scientific purpose, in favor of some supposedly "real" or "actual" teleological purpose. In other words, people here have been willing to posit that purpose is merely "real" or "actual" in the realm of religion, instead of science as teleonomy underlines. Contrarily, I've largely been duplicating Wikipedia/teleonomy.

On the contrary, many people had argued as if teleonomy didn't exist. Teleonomy may describe organic goal-directness, contrary to the teleological argument. Example, where user Moontonman argued of purpose merely in the realm of the "supernatural": "Not if the hypothesis calls on a word used in place of supernatural to describe something equally illusionary. Teleonomy only describes an illusion of purpose, which much like the supernatural, is not falsifiable... " Where is it supposedly mention that teleonomy is supposedly lack of purpose. Could you point show us where in the opening line of teleonomy your opinion supposedly exists?

I need not redefine anything as such. Opening line in Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning Another line from Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "It would seem useful to rigidly restrict the term teleonomic to systems operating on the basis of a program of coded information."

It is clear that many are unaware of teleonomy. That many had been unaware, does not suddenly warrant that I had "misread it". Thus far no evidence has been provided for this supposed misreading. You are yet to provide any evidence of such supposed "misreading". It would be advisable that you avoid blathering on absent evidence! Ironically, the definitions of teleonomy you cited align nicely with the OP. (Wikipedia also links to research discussions, so Wikipedia is not as terrible as you present. It is not very scientific to avoid research discussions, and merely rely on dictionary definitions!) Science itself comprises of models, that may not be precisely what the cosmos is. This does not suddenly warrant that science is illusory! In a youtube video, Richard Dawkins also describes purpose in the realm of man-made items. (See wikipedia teleonomy page)