zlacker

I'd argue they are the closest to AGI (how far off that is no one knows). That would make them a strong contender for the most important company in the world in my book.

>>bl0rg+(OP)
AGI without a body is just a glorified chatbot that is dependant on available, human provided resources.

To create true AGI, you would need to make the software aware of its surroundings and provide it with a way to experience the real world.

>>wheele+23
vision API is pretty good, have you tried it?

>>wheele+23
Even if that was true, do you think it would be hard to hook it up to a Boston Dynamics robot and potentially add a few sensors? I reckon that could be done in an afternoon (by humans), or a few seconds (by the AGI). I feel like I'm missing your point.

>>bl0rg+Oj
Well, we don't know how hard it is. But if it hasn't been done yet, it must be much harder than most people think.

If you do manage to make a thinking, working AGI machine, would you call it "a living being"?

No, the machine still needs to have individuality, a way to experience "oness" that all living humans (and perhaps animals, we don't know) feel. Some call it "a soul", others "consciousness".

The machine would have to live independently from its creators, to be self-aware, to multiply. Otherwise, it is just a shell filled with random data gathered from the Internet and its surroundings.

>>bl0rg+Oj
It's so incredibly not-difficult that Boston Dynamics themselves already did it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzOBZUFzTw

>>wheele+23
AGI with agent architectures (ie giving the AI access to APIs) will be bonkers.

An AI without a body, but access to every API currently hosted on the internet, and the ability to reason about them and compose them… that is something that needs serious consideration.

It sounds like you’re dismissing it because it won’t fit the mold of sci-fi humanoid-like robots, and I think that’s a big miss.