Re: [agi] Symbols
Richard, I hope you understand - and I think you do - unlike your good friend - that it's actually a lot easier to say nothing. Harsh as I may sound, I was trying to be constructive. I suggest that you cannot expect your reader to make allowances for you - your ideas have to be clearly stated upfront, even if in condensed form. You asked me for my ideas - e.g. the picture tree - I gave you them upfront, in v. condensed form. It's actually a v.g. incredibly valuable discipline to force yourself to pitch your ideas succinctly. It's useful whomever you're talking to, even idiots. In case you missed the 2nd of my mis-postings, I DID actually read your paper long ago as well as today - I had it in a folder. And I suggest it's worth considering my ideas about presentation - this is an area where I have a lot of professional experience. It's a major truth of understanding, for example, that if you don't tell your reader what your system does, you automatically leave them feeling vague, and place a strain on them. (A bit like a detective story without a murder). You could tell from Ben's recent report what a difference it made to his audience to have a clear demo of his system. If you want to send me something, I'll gladly look at it reply offline - although I'm real busy at the mo. answering *your* last question.! Best Mike Tintner wrote: Richard, I can't swear that I did read it. I read a paper of more or less exactly that length some time ago and do remember the Neats vs Scruffies bit. Here's why I would have not made an effort to remember the rest - and this is consistent with what what you do mention briefly here from time to time, and the impression I've already formed: The new methodology that I propose is not about random exploration of different designs for a general, human-level AI, it is about collecting data on the global behavior of large numbers of systems, while at the same time remaining as agnostic as possible about the local mechanisms that might give rise to the global characteristics we desire. This is a proposal about how you're going to try and come up with an idea. In spirit, (and I stress spirit), it's not a lot different from someone saying: What's my idea? I'll tell you - I'm going to get the best brains [or computers] that money can buy - loads loads of them. And get them to come up with an idea. Pretty original, huh? That's not an idea, Richard. *You* have to come up with that.. Is there any reason why you went to Section 4 of the paper, picked the first sentence out, and then criticized it as if that WAS the proposal I made? Section 4 is 1700 words long. Did you not notice the rest? Sadly, Section 4 had to be only 1700 words long because the paper was already over budget by about 2000 words. It made me miserable to try to condense any ideas at all into that space, but I had no choice. If you had come to me and said: I read section 4 and I tried to understand what you said there, but it seems like it barely scratches the surface: could you not elaborate on [this or that point]? I would have been more than willing to oblige. Heck, I'd have agreed with you: by the standards I anted to achieve, that section was awful. Instead you poured vicious, scornful sarcasm onto that first sentence. Doesn't look too good to me. I feel really bad about being unable to put more detail into that paper, so you have touched my weak spot, for sure. But, as I say, I really had no choice. There is a huge amount more that could have been said, believe me. What I actually did was to explain the approach in terms of existing approaches, thereby giving myself some hope of reaching people who already understood what those existing approaches were. Connectionism, for example, was a good reference point. Meet me halfway here and I am always willing to expand on anything I have written. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 4/1/2008 5:37 PM --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re : [agi] Instead of an AGI Textbook
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/arch.htm Architectures for Intelligent Systems good day - Message d'origine De : William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] À : agi@v2.listbox.com Envoyé le : Lundi, 31 Mars 2008, 23h35mn 42s Objet : Re: [agi] Instead of an AGI Textbook On 26/03/2008, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A lot of students email me asking me what to read to get up to speed on AGI. So I started a wiki page called Instead of an AGI Textbook, http://www.agiri.org/wiki/Instead_of_an_AGI_Textbook#Computational_Linguistics I've decided to go my own way and have started a new annotated text book, trying to link in all the topics I think relevant to my current state of work. http://www.agiri.org/wiki/AACA_Textbook I'll try putting in content in for each of those links. But coding for the architecture is probably more pointful at this point. Once I have it up and running on QEmu, I'll try and devote more time to education. Will Pearson --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com _ Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Plus de moyens pour rester en contact. http://mail.yahoo.fr --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Symbols
This is an excellent e-mail. Thank you. You are offering good advice from a position of knowledge. Let me restate for you your own advice . . . . I suggest that you cannot expect your reader to make allowances for you - On this list, you have the same bad habit that I frequently have. You are thinking things through as you go and getting very excited but don't go back and condense and clarify your thoughts before sending them out. This list *is* an excellent sounding board -- but it's even more effective if you use it efficiently and politely. Everyone is allowed numerous lapses, just don't be lazy and make it a permanent habit (or you'll get some jerk flaming you ;-). If you want to send me something, I'll gladly look at it reply offline - although I'm real busy at the mo. answering *your* last question.! It was not my intent to chase you off the list -- merely to modify your behavior. A good intelligent discussion where each person is directly addressing and replying intelligently to other's points is either a) appreciated by all or b) peaceably ignored (for example, the GLUT thread just doesn't do it for me personally -- but I'd never say anything because the participants seem to be having a great time making great progress on something that appears to be AGI-related). If you're willing to interact as an adult (as opposed to merely standing there and yelling I can't believe that y'all don't get this OR I'm sure that science will eventually catch on to my brilliant ideas), people here would enjoy your keeping it on-list. Thanks again. Mark - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Symbols Richard, I hope you understand - and I think you do - unlike your good friend - that it's actually a lot easier to say nothing. Harsh as I may sound, I was trying to be constructive. I suggest that you cannot expect your reader to make allowances for you - your ideas have to be clearly stated upfront, even if in condensed form. You asked me for my ideas - e.g. the picture tree - I gave you them upfront, in v. condensed form. It's actually a v.g. incredibly valuable discipline to force yourself to pitch your ideas succinctly. It's useful whomever you're talking to, even idiots. In case you missed the 2nd of my mis-postings, I DID actually read your paper long ago as well as today - I had it in a folder. And I suggest it's worth considering my ideas about presentation - this is an area where I have a lot of professional experience. It's a major truth of understanding, for example, that if you don't tell your reader what your system does, you automatically leave them feeling vague, and place a strain on them. (A bit like a detective story without a murder). You could tell from Ben's recent report what a difference it made to his audience to have a clear demo of his system. If you want to send me something, I'll gladly look at it reply offline - although I'm real busy at the mo. answering *your* last question.! Best Mike Tintner wrote: Richard, I can't swear that I did read it. I read a paper of more or less exactly that length some time ago and do remember the Neats vs Scruffies bit. Here's why I would have not made an effort to remember the rest - and this is consistent with what what you do mention briefly here from time to time, and the impression I've already formed: The new methodology that I propose is not about random exploration of different designs for a general, human-level AI, it is about collecting data on the global behavior of large numbers of systems, while at the same time remaining as agnostic as possible about the local mechanisms that might give rise to the global characteristics we desire. This is a proposal about how you're going to try and come up with an idea. In spirit, (and I stress spirit), it's not a lot different from someone saying: What's my idea? I'll tell you - I'm going to get the best brains [or computers] that money can buy - loads loads of them. And get them to come up with an idea. Pretty original, huh? That's not an idea, Richard. *You* have to come up with that.. Is there any reason why you went to Section 4 of the paper, picked the first sentence out, and then criticized it as if that WAS the proposal I made? Section 4 is 1700 words long. Did you not notice the rest? Sadly, Section 4 had to be only 1700 words long because the paper was already over budget by about 2000 words. It made me miserable to try to condense any ideas at all into that space, but I had no choice. If you had come to me and said: I read section 4 and I tried to understand what you said there, but it seems like it barely scratches the surface: could you not elaborate on [this or that point]? I would have been more than willing to oblige. Heck, I'd have agreed with you: by the
