Thanks for your reply. I have a few follow up questions.
(1) Are you working on this alone? Do you want to work with others?
(2) What is your end goal for this technology?
(3) How has your assessment of human intelligence changed upon discovering what you claim to have discovered? Are you impressed or disappointed?
(4) Would you say that developing AGI or developing free unlimited energy requires greater conceptual leaps in terms of research?
(5) How can you be sure that a government agency won't seize and classify your discoveries in national security interest, nor whether this has already happened in the past? (Or perhaps you are part of a PR campaign to finally make this technology public?)
(6) It's true that the creator of an agent with AGI can set restrictions on its potential behavior, but it's not true that a malicious creator of another agent with AGI couldn't permit it to behave in a destructive manner. Why should you be trusted to keep this technology to yourself when it might be in the public interest to take it from you by force? (I'm not saying that that would be "ethical" or consistent with the ideals espoused by liberal democracies. However it's perfectly consistent with the practical realities of the world.)
(7) I know you don't want to reveal particular details, but if you don't want people to think you are a crackpot at least give an idea of your estimation for the conceptual profundity of your discoveries (where you claim to have invalidated previously established theories): is it more akin to solving the P vs. NP problem, or more akin to having the insight that the brain doesn't have a dedicated floating point unit that performs gradient descent in order to set weights on neuronal connections?
(8) How difficult would it be to reverse engineer your technology if you ever commercialized it?
>And if I told you the foundation of AGI has already been defined, the core computational model proofed, and that a functional system exists today how would anything change? AGI is here and there is no doomsday playing out. It's running on an 8-core processor, a GPU, and 32GB of RAM completing interactive exercises and going through a series of tests defined by its creator. The bowl of spaghetti above your head was decoded and a functional equivalent instantiated in computer hardware. The locks are compiled binaries, read only code regions, and a power button.
(1) What sort of tests is it going through?
(2) How do you know it's self-aware (don't just say because you designed it that way)?
(3) How is this an improvement over SHRDLU (which also exhibited fairly complex behavior and "understanding" within a simulated environment)?
(4) Did you actually "invalidate a host of theories, [and] create new mathematics, new algorithms, and new theories"? Which ones?
(1) Are you working on this alone? Do you want to work with others?
(2) What is your end goal for this technology?
(3) How has your assessment of human intelligence changed upon discovering what you claim to have discovered? Are you impressed or disappointed?
(4) Would you say that developing AGI or developing free unlimited energy requires greater conceptual leaps in terms of research?
(5) How can you be sure that a government agency won't seize and classify your discoveries in national security interest, nor whether this has already happened in the past? (Or perhaps you are part of a PR campaign to finally make this technology public?)
(6) It's true that the creator of an agent with AGI can set restrictions on its potential behavior, but it's not true that a malicious creator of another agent with AGI couldn't permit it to behave in a destructive manner. Why should you be trusted to keep this technology to yourself when it might be in the public interest to take it from you by force? (I'm not saying that that would be "ethical" or consistent with the ideals espoused by liberal democracies. However it's perfectly consistent with the practical realities of the world.)
(7) I know you don't want to reveal particular details, but if you don't want people to think you are a crackpot at least give an idea of your estimation for the conceptual profundity of your discoveries (where you claim to have invalidated previously established theories): is it more akin to solving the P vs. NP problem, or more akin to having the insight that the brain doesn't have a dedicated floating point unit that performs gradient descent in order to set weights on neuronal connections?
(8) How difficult would it be to reverse engineer your technology if you ever commercialized it?