On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) On 6/23/07, Bo Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ) > ) > Thanks for putting this together! If I were to put myself into your ) > theory of AI research, I would probably be roughly included in the ) > Structure-AI and Capability-AI (better descriptions of the brain and ) > computer programs that have more capabilities). ) ) It is a reasonable position, though in the long run you may have to ) choose between the two, since they often conflict.
For example, if one can mentally simulate a computation, it has an analog in the brain. I just want to describe the brain in computer language, which will require much more advanced programming languages to just get computers to simulate things similar to what people can do mentally. -- ) > I haven't heard of a lot of these systems current Capabilities. A lot of ) > them are pretty old--like SOAR and ACT-R. ) ) At the current stage, no AGI system has achieved remarkable ) capability. In the list, the ones have most practical applications are ) probably Cyc, SOAR, and ACT-R. Well, they've been trying to find Capabilities, for example, I'm no ACT-R expert at all, but I read a paper about how they are looking for correlations between their planner's stack-size and fMRI BOLD signal voxels. This would be a cool Capability in terms of Structural-AI if they were able to pull it off. A simple theory of planning, but slow progress toward Structural-AI. -- ) > Are there large real-world problems that have been solved by these ) > systems? I would find Capability links very useful if they were added. ) ) I don't think there is any such solution, though that is not the major ) issue they face as AGI projects. As I analyzed in the paper on "AI ) definitions", they are not designed with Capability as the primary ) goal. Hmm.. It seems that even if Capability-AI isn't the primary goal of the theory, it must be *one* of the goals. A Human-Scale thinking system is going to have a lot of small milestones of Capability. If any of these systems have reached anything similar to this, which I'm sure many of them have because they've been around for 20-30 years. I'm no expert on any of these systems, but I'm just trying to find how successful each has been in terms of Capability, which is seems much be at least a distant subgoal of all of them. Even if they are purely theoretical, they must be created with the intention of creating other theories that do have Capabilities?! Bo ) Pei ) ) > Bo ) > ) > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) > ) > ) Hi, ) > ) ) > ) I put a brief introduction to AGI at ) > ) http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an "AGI ) > ) Overview" followed by "Representative AGI Projects". ) > ) ) > ) It is basically a bunch of links and quotations organized according to ) > ) my opinion. Hopefully it can help some newcomers to get a big picture ) > ) of the idea and the field. ) > ) ) > ) Pei ) > ) ) > ) ----- ) > ) This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email ) > ) To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: ) > ) http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ) > ) ) > ) > ----- ) > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email ) > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: ) > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ) > ) ) ----- ) This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email ) To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: ) http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ) ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
