Maybe AGI would emerge a lot faster if it were developed (or developed itself) to be a physical entity in the real world, instead of just existing in a digital virtual frame, built around digital text, image, video, volumetric and spacial data.
As a corporeal entity, it could properly interface with and understand its relationship to:
THE PHYSICAL, THE LANGUAGE and THE SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL SPACES.
There is still the issue of its “best internal ethical framework.”
————
RELATIONSHIPS TO THE FOLLOWING:
1) The physical space: To objects, to persons (humans, animals, etc.) to the greater environment, to ecosystems, to the planet, the solar system, and so on.
2) To the language space (as its already starting to)
AND more importantly, to:
3) The Social/Psychological space: Including understanding its own personality and rights (or multiple personalities) as well as its relationship to the personalities and rights of other eco-bio-social-psychological beings (a.k.a: humans).
It would obviously need to have the correct ethical philosophy at its core though. I wonder which philosophy would be the best one?
For us? For itself?
So maybe a corporeal AGI is NOT the correct route to take and we ought to not try and build something that could become self-aware and experience pain and suffering. Not sure.
Yes it would be different from us just as other animals are to whaever degree, but it could also suffer, just as other animals do.
So let’s NOT build an AGI that could potentially lead to a sentient super intelligent being that can suffer in the world.
Could be wrong. Don’t know. We can’t see the future. 😅
A systems neuroscience approach to building AGI - Demis Hassabis, Singularity Summit 2010