> also perhaps human GI? Nothing artificial about it.
Lol, thanks, that's quite funny. I should spend less time on the internet.
> While there's probably an argument that problem solving is selected for it's not clear to me how far this goes at all.
Yeah, I meant something much more low brow which is that _humans_, with all of our properties (including GI), are a result of natural selection. I'm not claiming GI was selected for specifically, but it certainly occurred as a side-effect either way. So we know optimisation can work.
> There are plenty of imaginable forms of intelligence that are often ignored during these conversations.
I completely agree! I wish there was more discussion on intelligence in the broad in these threads. Even if you insist on sticking to humans it's pretty clear that something like a company or a government is operating very intelligently in its own environment (business, or politics), well beyond the influence of its individual constituents.
> Basically I don't think your expression of Bayes' theorem had nearly enough possibilities in it.
Another issue with Bayes in general is that you have a fixed probability space in mind when you use it, right? I can use Bayes to optimise my beliefs against a fixed ontology, but it says nothing about how or when to update the ontology itself.
And no doubt my ontology is lacking when it comes to (A)GI...
Lol, thanks, that's quite funny. I should spend less time on the internet.
> While there's probably an argument that problem solving is selected for it's not clear to me how far this goes at all.
Yeah, I meant something much more low brow which is that _humans_, with all of our properties (including GI), are a result of natural selection. I'm not claiming GI was selected for specifically, but it certainly occurred as a side-effect either way. So we know optimisation can work.
> There are plenty of imaginable forms of intelligence that are often ignored during these conversations.
I completely agree! I wish there was more discussion on intelligence in the broad in these threads. Even if you insist on sticking to humans it's pretty clear that something like a company or a government is operating very intelligently in its own environment (business, or politics), well beyond the influence of its individual constituents.
> Basically I don't think your expression of Bayes' theorem had nearly enough possibilities in it.
Another issue with Bayes in general is that you have a fixed probability space in mind when you use it, right? I can use Bayes to optimise my beliefs against a fixed ontology, but it says nothing about how or when to update the ontology itself.
And no doubt my ontology is lacking when it comes to (A)GI...