Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

That system used the 6510 as its CPU, which was a modification of the venerable 8-bit 6502 processor, used in the Apple, Apple II, and my own favorite for price/performance, the Atari400/800 computer systems.  It also appeared in the Atari 2600 gaming systems, Nintendo ES, and a bunch of other 8-bit platforms of the day.  I have a special place in my heart for that little CPU.

As do I.  6502 made the 80's.  

There seems to be some debate on whether AGI as you've described it, would entail sentient self-awareness or not.  Technically, I suppose those are two different things, since after all, an algorithm that can do one thing could logically become capable of doing another thing without awareness, depending on how complex the algorithm becomes.  otoh, it seems once you become capable of being goal-directed, or self-directed, you might require sentience. 

What do you think?

Holy Cow I just had a 6-paragraph response to almost exactly this question, and for some reason my browser decided to back up, and I lost the whole thing.

I'm long-winded anyway, so it's probably a fortunate happenstance, for the sake of brevity.  In summary, my mind goes to two questions when contemplating this matter:

1) Is it ultimately possible for GAI to reach a point of sentience, of self-wareness, of independent thought?  It's as much a philosophical and spiritual question, as it is a scientific one.  Can an artificial system gain true sentience, and if such a thing as a soul does exist, is it possible for an artificial system to develop one?  And if not, is that potentially problematic?

2) From a practical standpoint, does it actually matter whether or not 1) above is possible?  If we can design or evolve an artificial system in hardware and software that is complex enough to emulate General AI, sentience, self-awareness, and to do it in perfect or extremely close imitation to the capability of an actual human, does it matter whether or not it's actually sentient? 

I think there are many questions about the possibility of 1) above, but I have very little doubt that we'll achieve 2) above, and at that point, I'm not sure there's any practical difference in the two, other than the implications about "playing God" and whatnot that are inextricably associated with the first.

we're a long, long way from singularity.  

but what we call AI is pretty convincing unless you know what it's doing. 

this may seem political- so be it- but..... 

Contracts were let under the 1stTrump administration... how that happened is clever unto itself, but... briefly some groups were paid to build a capability using quantum computers, but the way the contract was worded- they sold the results of queries, not the device.  Apparently some close to Trump and Trump himself were big fans... I'll circle back to this in a second... 

meanwhile... 

i don't know the proper names or have forgotten them if ever i did, but the ability to create a database from a query happened... a rigid db complete with tables, columns, rows, and multiple queries interacting and collecting information- but created 'on the fly' using understanding of language sprinkled with key operative words... wham- just like that, a computer extracted your intent and made a database... then, it is pointed toward a pile of data- piles and piles of formless data- and then by arranging that data using key words, phrases, ect, it slams the data into a formation based on relations and in the context of the query the database was formed for/by... and instant information was available about what-the-hell-ever you wanted.... which is then leveraged to provide predictive analysis.  

the idea is you can ask this mechanism a question- using definitively defined operative words where needed (if you can't do that, you just ask it to build the query for you), and access through whatever data source(s) is simplified- and based on what it learns, it can predict what is most likely to happen... providing results like "there is a 97.2% chance ___ will be a result of this scenario and a 1.1% chance this, and a ...... "... and the friggin' thing works. 

and Trump loved it.  and he used it often.  what the machine couldn't 'predict' was unknown and unanticipated variables. 

now back to the company that created this thing (and still runs it)- they still sell the data to the gov't.  intelligence community loves it... limitations on who they can sell the info to expires at some point, and supposedly they've got advertising agencies lined up down the street and around the corner- who already own sophisticated software, but who recognize this gadget 'beats all they've ever seen' in it's capability to mine specific data and make predictive models as accurately as it does. 

this was some years ago.  i can only imagine how much more it's advanced in the last eight years.  .... in a nutshell, how that thing works is my common definition of AI.  it also begs the question 'who needs AI when you have the keys to that thing? let them eat cake"....

My past visit to the dentist had Xrays and the doc noted a spot under an incisor that he wanted noted for the future.  I'd guess any "AI" examination would have done the same. and a doc would be responsible to concluding yay or nay.  In my case, it's just a possible future worry, and it's a tooth.  

Is there a real situation where AI would be left "alone" to decide if it's a tumor or item of concern, or would it finally be a doctor's call?  I suspect the latter.

As for autonomous vehicles, well, yeah.  They can't just be better, not even 10x better, but nearly infinitely better.

If AI doesn't allow beans in chili, it means we wound up in the Terminator/Matrix future, and not the optimistic Star Trek one. 

Hitting AI with a bean ball works also

I presume there are other things out there likely to change how we live in the next couple of decades, in the past we had the Internet as a major event (over time).  I dimly recall attending a presentation on what was called the World Wide Web, the presenters were very enthusiastic, I didn't quite see the point of it at that time.  Personal computers of course enabled that transition.  

I also recall showing up at the airport 5 minutes before my flight and zooming through "security" to the gate.  

GPS has changed travel a good bit for us I think.  I often wonder how I got around before that.  I can recall my first time flying a Cessna with my friend who had a portable GPS with him, it seemed like cheating it was so simple.  Navigation in a plane before that was interesting.

beem me up, scotty