Technical discussion of an integrative AGI architecture diagram

5.3 An Architecture Diagram for Human-Like General Intelligence 97 One possible negative reaction to the integrative diagram might be to say that it’s a kind of Frankenstein monster diagram, piecing together aspects of different theories in a way that violates the theoretical notions underlying all of them! For example, the integrative diagram takes LIDA as a model of working memory and reactive processing, but from the papers on LIDA it’s unclear whether the creators of LIDA construe it more broadly than that. The deep learning community tends to believe that the architecture of current deep learning networks, in itself, is close to sufficient for human-level general intelligence — whereas the integrative diagram appropriates the ideas from this community mainly for handling perception, action and language, etc. On the other hand, in a more positive perspective, one could view the integrative diagram as consistent with LIDA, but merely providing much more detail on some of the boxes in the LIDA diagram (e.g. dealing with perception and long-term memory). And one could view the integrative diagram as consistent with the deep learning paradigm — via viewing it, not as a description of components to be explicitly implemented in an AGI system, but rather as a description of the key structures and processes that must emerge in deep learning network, based on its engagement with the world, in order for it to achieve human-like general intelligence. Our own view, underlying the creation of the integrative diagram, is that different commu- nities of cognitive science researchers have focused on different aspects of intelligence, and have thus each created models that are more fully fleshed out in some aspects than others. But these various models all link together fairly cleanly, which is not surprising as they are all grounded in the same data regarding human intelligence. Many judgment calls must be made in fusing multiple models in the way that the integrative diagram does, but we feel these can be made without violating the spirit of the component models. In assembling the integrative diagram, we have made these judgment calls as best we can, but we’re well aware that different judgments would also be feasible and defensible. Revisions are likely as time goes on, not only due to new data about human intelligence but also to evolution of understanding regarding the best approach to model integration. Another possible argument against the ideas presented here is that there’s nothing new — all the ingredients presented have been given before elsewhere. To this our retort is to quote Pascal: "Let no one say that I have said nothing new ... the arrangement of the subject is new." The various architecture diagrams incorporated into the integrative diagram are either extremely high level (Sloman’s diagram) or focus primarily on one aspect of intelligence, treating the others very concisely by summarizing large networks of distinction structures and processes in small boxes. The integrative diagram seeks to cover all aspects of human-like intelligence at a roughly equal granularity — a different arrangement. This kind of high-level diagramming exercise is not precise enough, nor dynamics-focused enough, to serve as a guide for creating human-level or more advanced AGI. But it can be a useful tool for explaining and interpreting a concrete AGI design, such as CogPrime. 5.3 An Architecture Diagram for Human-Like General Intelligence The integrative diagram is presented here in a series of seven Figures. Figure 5.1 gives a high-level breakdown into components, based on Sloman’s high-level cognitive-architectural sketch [Slo01]. This diagram represents, roughly speaking, "modern com- mon sense" about how a human-like mind is architected. The separation between structures HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013013