[outsideline]

Yes, do you know of the number of groups who are actively developing AGI? who have made steady progress over the years? I see no big names invested in them. Why would someone try to create your own group having no background in development of AGI? Seems a bit off the mark no?

Most AGI focused ventures are not even in the U.S. A prominent one is in China. Another is in Europe. The ones in the U.S are privately funded beyond the big names. Furthermore, where is the U.S's equivalent of : https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ ?

Where are the seasoned software engineers in the ranks at these highly funded silicon valley Ai companies? I typically see a roster of 'big names' and PhDs... Whereas, I look at the companies specifically pursuing AGI and I see a whole range of individuals.. PHD neuroscience, Senior game developer, Robotics Engineer, Senior firmware developer, Guy from down the hall who can code circles around silicon valley's most decorated engineer, etc etc.

Look at the Geohot story, that's the kind of individual and company who ushers in a new paradigm ....

If the solution requires you to 'think different', how do you expect to achieve it by padding your company with a bunch of individuals who are all centered on the same techniques from academia?

[daveguy]

>do you know of the number of groups who are actively developing AGI? who have made steady progress over the years?

I do not. It seems like researchers who call themselves AGI researchers have made no more significant progress than researchers developing specific analysis techniques. Do you have a list of these groups? I would be very interested to read about their approach and progress.

On the human brain initiative it seems like their is such a huge gap between AGI and current techniques that these HBI projects (and the US response[0]) are a bit misguided into giant neural simulations.

> ... companies specifically pursuing AGI and I see a whole range of individuals ...

I completely agree this is the necessary approach to pursuing AGI. Who are these companies? They sound awesome and I would like to learn more. Are you talking OpenAI? Some other companies?

Geohot. Will check him out.

EDIT: oh, George Hotz. He is using deep learning[1]

Agreed deep learning will be a tool, but not the end of AGI. Companies padding with deep learning PhDs are looking more at specific tasks that can be tackled with deep learning. Also, I would argue that deep learning has become an umbrella term for all neural network based approaches (great marketing) and there are still great advances to be made with DL building blocks.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...

[outsideline]

I'm not attempting to be a smart arse. However, I really think you should google it :). It is too common a trend for one to latch on to popular names as if they're the only ones doing anything important in a space. There are many cases whereby they're doing the least important work.

I mentioned George Hotz to highlight a capable individual with vision, passion, and capability who 'thinks different'. With many individuals, the capability is there. However, often times the vision, passion, or capability to think different isn't. Funny then that there becomes this hiring norm which attempts to find the 'most capable' individual and ignores the other more important characteristics.

Time will tell. I'm personally looking elsewhere beyond the names everyone mentions when it comes to development in this space.

[daveguy]

I'm not attempting to be a smart ass, but you should back up your speculation with facts and references. Is the best research a secret?

Your post implied that you have some special insight into research groups that are doing AGI research and are making steady progress. I have done plenty of Google searches and not run across any notable AGI progress.

The one reference you provided was for a deep learning implementation, which is what you seemed to be dismissing.

[outsideline]

> I'm not attempting to be a smart ass, but you should back up your speculation with facts and references. Is the best research a secret?

Yes. Given the attitudes of people in the space and beyond and lack of funding why shouldn't the more valuable and fundamental research be kept secret? They're taking all of the risk to pursue something that everyone is saying is impossible. Why would they publish details? If more funding and support would come through maybe they would. Otherwise, they're seemingly developing a fundamental AGI that has the ability to operate under its own free-will and mechanisms. It is being said that it's impossible... Once it's completed no one will be able to deny it at that point. Maybe the money will come then... Maybe the openness will too.

> Your post implied that you have some special insight into research groups that are doing AGI research and are making steady progress. I have done plenty of Google searches and not run across any notable AGI progress.

Yes and I will not disclose where my insights derive from. I'm sure people have their ways of discovering it nonetheless. Some groups and individuals are developing conscious self-willed software solutions. I'm referencing them. Is that not what 'life' which intelligence springs from fundamentally is? As will be true for AGI... Not programs that mimic human behavior or optimization algorithms.. Software solutions that are truly aware.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Given the attitudes of people in the space and beyond and lack of funding why shouldn't the more valuable and fundamental research be kept secret?

If it's secret, how do you know about it? If you don't have specific knowledge, how can you claim there is "fundamental AGI" research done in secret, as opposed to it just not being done, as all appearances indicate?

>It is being said that it's impossible...

Nobody who understands recent neuroscience claims any such thing is impossible. We just claim it hasn't been done in the lab yet.