Scholarlink

<p>AI (Artificial Intelligence) is a rapidly evolving field with profound implications for the future. As several companies race to achieve AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), this pursuit could dramatically impact humanity. On one hand, AGI holds the promise of helping humanity envision and create a better future. On the other hand, it raises significant ethical and practical threats. This dichotomy presents a dilemma, further influenced by human origins that are fundamentally shaping the AI and AGI development. <i>In this article, we explore the origins of AGI and how they shape the emergence of fundamentally different kinds of AGI, each with distinct characteristics and varying implications for human-AGI interaction</i>. The transition from AI to AGI is deeply influenced by human perspectives on the nature of thought and action, often referenced as “Theories of Mind”. This perspective significantly impacts both the nature and content of AGI. Given the complexity and variance of these views, it is essential to understand their implications upon the characteristics of AGI that will result from the use of each theory. We examined two prominent theoretical frameworks that represent contrasting perspectives on the nature of cognition: Computation theory, which is widely regarded as the dominant model for explaining cognitive functioning, and Embodied Cognition theory, which challenges the computational paradigm by emphasizing the role of the body and environment in shaping cognition. Our analysis highlights both the fundamental differences between these theories and the need for their integration into a more comprehensive unified perspective. By analyzing these theories and projecting the forms of AGI they are likely to produce, we demonstrate how they lead to fundamentally different models of AGI, and potentially—to drastically different expressions of human thought. We suggest a reconciliation of these theoretical differences by uniting their best qualities, thereby enabling the development of a more socially attuned AGI that aligns more closely to human values and norms.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

AGI imagined: how is AGI configured by the theories of mind

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月29日

查看全文
  • Jacob Zilberman,
  • Boaz Tamir

摘要

AI (Artificial Intelligence) is a rapidly evolving field with profound implications for the future. As several companies race to achieve AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), this pursuit could dramatically impact humanity. On one hand, AGI holds the promise of helping humanity envision and create a better future. On the other hand, it raises significant ethical and practical threats. This dichotomy presents a dilemma, further influenced by human origins that are fundamentally shaping the AI and AGI development. In this article, we explore the origins of AGI and how they shape the emergence of fundamentally different kinds of AGI, each with distinct characteristics and varying implications for human-AGI interaction. The transition from AI to AGI is deeply influenced by human perspectives on the nature of thought and action, often referenced as “Theories of Mind”. This perspective significantly impacts both the nature and content of AGI. Given the complexity and variance of these views, it is essential to understand their implications upon the characteristics of AGI that will result from the use of each theory. We examined two prominent theoretical frameworks that represent contrasting perspectives on the nature of cognition: Computation theory, which is widely regarded as the dominant model for explaining cognitive functioning, and Embodied Cognition theory, which challenges the computational paradigm by emphasizing the role of the body and environment in shaping cognition. Our analysis highlights both the fundamental differences between these theories and the need for their integration into a more comprehensive unified perspective. By analyzing these theories and projecting the forms of AGI they are likely to produce, we demonstrate how they lead to fundamentally different models of AGI, and potentially—to drastically different expressions of human thought. We suggest a reconciliation of these theoretical differences by uniting their best qualities, thereby enabling the development of a more socially attuned AGI that aligns more closely to human values and norms.