Line up all the things in the universe that are intelligent. They are all conscious.
Unless you mean "imitating intelligence", but that's not what AGI (artificial general intelligence) is targeting.
An AGI robot would be one to include in any future line-up of "all the things that are intelligent". My view is that unless an AGI robot has a nervous system, it will never belong in that category.
It is fashionable in tech today to speak metaphorically with abandon and to call whatever we like "intelligent" (and to have, machine "learning", etc.). These systems are no more intelligent than an abacus: upon inventing a wood-to-lcd converter, we could run Win95 on a few million wooden beads.
Metaphorically, these are intelligent. They fill the role of prior uses of genuine intelligence -- ie., they can help us calculate and therefore substitute our calculative conscious behaviours for non-conscious substitutes. They are tools.
My hammar is no more intelligent than my laptop however. Neither possess thoughts, nor can conceptualize or understand anything. A concept is a (biochemical) technique an animal acquires through a biochemical interaction with the world: an electric field can not have concepts.
The argument that machines-which-seem-intelligent are intelligent is only a fallacy of ambiguity. What we mean, of machines, is a tool-which-helps-conceptualizing. We we mean of general intelligence is conceptualizing. The former and the latter are not the same. In a universe only of tools, nothing thinks to use them.
Unless you mean "imitating intelligence", but that's not what AGI (artificial general intelligence) is targeting.
An AGI robot would be one to include in any future line-up of "all the things that are intelligent". My view is that unless an AGI robot has a nervous system, it will never belong in that category.
It is fashionable in tech today to speak metaphorically with abandon and to call whatever we like "intelligent" (and to have, machine "learning", etc.). These systems are no more intelligent than an abacus: upon inventing a wood-to-lcd converter, we could run Win95 on a few million wooden beads.
Metaphorically, these are intelligent. They fill the role of prior uses of genuine intelligence -- ie., they can help us calculate and therefore substitute our calculative conscious behaviours for non-conscious substitutes. They are tools.
My hammar is no more intelligent than my laptop however. Neither possess thoughts, nor can conceptualize or understand anything. A concept is a (biochemical) technique an animal acquires through a biochemical interaction with the world: an electric field can not have concepts.
The argument that machines-which-seem-intelligent are intelligent is only a fallacy of ambiguity. What we mean, of machines, is a tool-which-helps-conceptualizing. We we mean of general intelligence is conceptualizing. The former and the latter are not the same. In a universe only of tools, nothing thinks to use them.