On 5/7/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. But it hasn't stopped people from trying.
The meaning of sentences and even paragraphs depends on context that is
not captured in logic. Consider the following examples, where a different
word is emphasized in each case:
- I didn't
On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my knowledge there is a standard style but there is of course no standard
ontology. Roughly the standard style is First Order Predicate Calculus
(FOPC) and within the linguistics community this is called logical form. For
reference see
On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not heard about Rus form. Could you provide a link or reference?
This is one of the papers:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/22812/http:zSzzSzwww.seas.smu.eduzSz~vasilezSzictai2001.pdf/rus01high.pdf
you can find some examples
On 5/4/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As perhaps you know, I want to organize Texai as a vast multitude of
agents situated in a hierarchical control system, grouped as possibly
redundant, load-sharing, agents within an agency sharing a specific
mission. I have given some thought to
I'm wondering if it's possible to plug in my learning algorithm to
OpenCog / Novamente?
The main incompatibilities stem from:
1. predicate logic vs term logic
2. graphical KB vs sentential KB
If there is a way to somehow bridge these gaps, it may be possible
YKY
On 5/6/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the opposite of what you say I hope that my following
explanation will help converge our thinking. Let me first emphasize
that I plan a vast multitude of specialized agencies, in which each
agency has a particular
@Stephen Reed and others:
I'm writing a prototype of my AGI in Lisp, with special emphasis on
the inductive learning algorithm. I'm looking for collaborators.
It seems that Texai is the closed to my AGI theory, so it would be
easier for us to jam. I wonder if Texai has already developed
On 5/4/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting that you should ask about Texai and reasoning / learning
algorithms. As you know, my initial approach to learning is learning by
being taught. Therefore I do not have much yet to offer with regard to
machine learning, learning
(I'm kind of busy with personal matters... so will be brief)
I want to know where can we have an AGI project that allows
collaboration, and is also commercial?
I think many of the other AI communities are strongly academical.
This list is slightly different in that respect.
YKY
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a person thinks in his/her first language, and when talking in
a second language there is some extra processing going on (though it
may not be exactly a translation process), which slow things down,
giving the
There is no doubt that learning new languages at an older age is much
more difficult than younger. I wonder if there are some hard
computational constraints that we must observe in order for the
learning algorithm to be tractable. Perhaps sensory / linguistic
learning should be most intense
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:20 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 22, 2008, at 11:55 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
There is no doubt that learning new languages at an older age is much
more difficult than younger.
I seem to recall that recent research does not support
On 4/18/08, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:32 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
Disk access rate is ~10 times faster than ethernet access rate. IMO,
if RAM is not enough the next thing to turn to should be the harddisk.
Eh? Ethernet latency is sub-millisecond
On 4/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um. Neither side is arguing that the whole KB fit into RAM. I'm arguing
that the necessary *core* for intelligence plus enough cached chunks (as
you phrase it) to support the current thought processes WILL fit into RAM.
It's obviously ludicrous
On 4/18/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your estimate of the quantity of all the world's knowledge? (Or the
amount needed to achieve AGI or some specific goal?)
Matt,
The world's knowledge is irrelevant to the goal of AGI. What we
need is to build a commonsense AGI and then
On 4/19/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PREMISES:
(1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative open-source
On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative open-source
projects are best suited to situations in which the fundamental ideas behind
the design has been solved.
I believe I've solved the fundamental issues behind the
On 4/19/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we lack such a consensus. So the theorists are not working together.
I correct that. Theorists do not need to work together; theories can
be applied anywhere. It's the *designers* who are not working
together.
YKY
On 4/19/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
testing. Also, in this field, no infrastructure is really
theoretically neutral --- OpenCog is clearly not suitable to test
all kinds of AGI theories, though I like the project, and
On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't claim that the Novamente/OpenCog design is the **only** way ... but I
do
note that the different parts are carefully designed to interoperate together
in subtle ways, so replacing any one component w/ some standard system
won't work.
On 4/17/08, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, you are not correct about this. All good database engines use a
combination of clever adaptive cache replacement algorithms (read: keeps
stuff you are most likely to access next in RAM) and cost-based optimization
(read: optimizes
To use an example,
If a lot of people search for Harry Porter, then a conventional
database system would make future retrieval of the Harry Porter node
faster.
But the requirement of the inference system is such that, if Harry
Porter is fetched, then we would want *other* things that are
On 4/17/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You *REALLY* need to get up to speed on current database systems before you
make more ignorant statements.
First off, *most* databases RARELY go to the disk for reads. Memory is
cheap and the vast majority of complex databases are generally
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for sharing this! VERY few people have experience with this stuff...
On 4/17/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. I began writing my own storage engine, for a fast, space-efficient,
partitioned and sharded knowledge base, soon realizing that this was far too
big
On 4/17/08, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, most good database engines can do this, as it is a standard access
pattern for databases, and most databases can solve this problem multiple
ways. As an example, clustering and index-organization features in
databases address your
On 4/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. RAM is *HUGE*. Intelligence is *NOT*.
Really? I will believe that if I see more evidence... right now I'm skeptical.
Also, I'm designing a learning algorithm that stores *hypotheses* in
the KB along with accepted rules. This will
On 4/18/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with your side of the debate about whole KB not fitting into RAM. As
a solution, I propose to partition the whole KB into the tiniest possible
cached chunks, suitable for a single agent running on a host computer with
RAM resources
For those using database systems for AGI, I'm wondering if the data
retrieval rate would be a problem.
Typically we need to retrieve many nodes from the DB to do inference.
The nodes may be scattered around the DB. So it may require *many*
disk accesses. My impression is that most DBMS are
On 3/5/08, david cash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, instead of having to cherry-pick desirable and
undesirable traits in an unconscious AGI entity, that we, of course, wish to
have consciousness and cognitive abilites like reasoning, deductive and
inductive logic comprehension skills,
On 3/4/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the question is whether the internal knowledge representation of
the AGI needs to allow ambiguities, or should we use an ambiguity-free
representation. It seems that the latter choice is better.
An excellent point. But what if the
On 3/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think the right goal is to create an AGI that, in each
context, can be as ambiguous as it wants/needs to be in its
representation of a given piece of information.
Ambiguity allows compactness, and can be very valuable in this regard.
I'm increasingly convinced that the human brain is not a statistical
learner, but a logical learner. There are many examples of humans
learning concepts/rules from one or two examples, rather than thousands of
examples. So I think that at a high level, AGI should be logic-based.
But it would be
On 2/28/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Ben's text mining approach has one big flaw: it can
only reason about existing knowledge, but cannot generate new ideas using
words / concepts
There is a substantial amount of literature that claims that *humans*
can't generate new
On 3/4/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good example, but how about: language is open-ended, period and capable of
infinite rather than myriad interpretations - and that open-endedness is
the whole point of it?.
Simple example much like yours : handle. You can attach words for
objects
My latest thinking tends to agree with Matt that language and common sense
are best learnt together. (Learning langauge before common sense
is impossible / senseless).
I think Ben's text mining approach has one big flaw: it can only reason
about existing knowledge, but cannot generate new ideas
On 2/28/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to try and elucidate my approach to building an intelligent
system, in a round about fashion. This is the problem I am trying to
solve.
Imagine you are designing a computer system to solve an unknown
problem, and you have these
On 2/28/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note I want something different than computational universality. E.g.
Von Neumann architectures are generally programmable, Harvard
architectures aren't. As they can't be reprogrammed at run time.
It seems that you want to build the AGI from
On 2/27/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY
I thought you were talking about the extraction of information that
is explicitly stated in online text.
Of course, inference is a separate process (though it may also play a
role in direct information extraction).
I don't think the
On 2/25/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
There is no good overview of SMT so far as I know, just some technical
papers... but SAT solvers are not that deep and are well reviewed in
this book...
http://www.sls-book.net/
But that's *propositional* satisfiability, the results may
On 2/15/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, the following two questions are independent of each other:
*. What type of reasoning is needed for AI? The major answers are:
(A): deduction only, (B) multiple types, including deduction,
induction, abduction, analogy, etc.
*. What type
On 2/26/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, extracting knowledge from the Web using a simplistic SAT
approach is infeasible
However, I don't think it follows from this that extracting rich
knowledge from the Web is infeasible
It would require a complex system involving at
On 2/19/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we need a KB orders of magnitude larger to make that approach work,
doesn't that mean we should use another approach?
But do you agree that a KB orders of magnitude larger is required for all
AGI, regardless of *how* the knowledge is
On 2/21/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feeding all the ambiguous interpretations of a load of sentences into
a probabilistic
logic network, and letting them get resolved by reference to each
other, is a sort of
search for the most likely solution of a huge system of simultaneous
On 2/19/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei: Resolution-based FOL on a huge KB is intractable.
Agreed.
However Cycorp spend a great deal of programming effort (i.e. many
man-years) finding deep inference paths for common queries. The strategies
were:
prune the rule set according
On 2/19/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would this approach succeed where Cyc failed? Cyc paid people to
build
the knowledge base. Then when they couldn't sell it, the tried giving it
away. Still, nobody used it.
For an AGI to be useful, people have to be able to communicate
On 2/19/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A purely resolution-based inference engine is mathematically elegant,
but completely impractical, because after all the knowledge are
transformed into the clause form required by resolution, most of the
semantic information in the knowledge
On 2/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe I offered the beginning of a v. useful way to conceive of this
whole area in an earlier post.
The key concept is inventory of the world.
First of all, what is actually being talked about here is only a
VERBAL/SYMBOLIC KB.
One of
On 2/17/08, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Before you embark on such a project, it might be worth first looking
closely at the question of why Cyc hasn't been useful, so that you
don't end up making the same
On 2/17/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no similar plan for OpenNARS. When the time comes, it
probably will get its knowledge, in a mixed manner, (1) from various
existing sources of formatted knowledge, including Cyc, (2) from the
Internet, using information
On 2/18/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I raised this issue before: by logical rules, do you mean inference
rules (like Derive conclusion C from premises A and B), or
implication statements (like If A and B are true, then C is true)?
These two are very often confused with each
On 2/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly suspect there is enough information in the
text online for an AGI to learn that water flows downhill in most
circumstances, without having explicit grounding...
I strongly suspect the contrary =) for the simple reason that adults
On 2/18/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only statements containing in a KB as content have truth-value, or
need acceptance. An inference rule is part of the system, which just
applies, and does not need acceptance within the system. An inference
rule has no truth-value.
If it is still
Yesterday I didn't give a clear explanation of what I mean by rules, so
here is a better try:
1. If I see a turkey inside the microwave, I immediately draw the
conclusion that it's NOT empty.
2. However, if I see some katchup on the inside walls of the microwave, I'd
say it's dirty but it's
On 2/18/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I would be very glad to incorporate any content that I can then
republish using a Wikipedia-compatible license, e.g. GNU Free Documentation
License. Any weaker license, such as Apache, BSD would be OK too.
Heh... I was thinking to make
On 2/18/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh... I think you could give away read-only access and charge people to
update it. Information has negative value, you know.
Well, the idea is to ask lots of people to contribute to the KB, and pay
them with virtual credits. (I expect such
How much of OpenCog will be finally opensource? 100%? Or will it be
partially open?
IMO the partial-open model still has the problems of both open and closed
source models: the open parts cannot make much money, and the closed parts
cannot recieve public input. Though, I appreciate that Ben
On 12/28/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO more important than working towards contributing clean code would be
to *publish the (required) interfaces for the modules as well as give
standards for/details on the knowledge representation format*. I am sure
that you have those
OpenCog is definitely a positive thing to happen in the AGI scene. It's
been all vaporware so far.
I wonder what would be the level of participation?
Also I think it's going to increase the chance of a safe takeoff, by
exposing users and developers gradually to AGI. But we also need to have
On Dec 21, 2007 11:08 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the goal of your system. What application?
Sorry about the delay, and Merry Xmas =)
The goal is to provide an easy input for AGI, temporarily until full NL
capacity is achievable.
I guess most AGIers would have realized by
On 12/21/07, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The above propositions have terms expressed in RDF, but are presented in
the lispy fashion desired by the original Fluid Construction Grammar
implementers. (predicate subject object). Note that I include
discourse axioms (e.g.
I'm planning to write an NL interface that uses templates to eliminate
parsing and thus achieve 100% accuracy for a restricted subset of English
(for example, asking the user to disambiguate parts of speech, syntax etc).
It seems that such a program doesn't exist yet.
It looks like AGI-level NLP
On 12/21/07, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi YKY,
I hope that by this time next year the Texai project will have a robust
English parser suitable for your project. I am working in collaboration
with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Synthetic Teammate Project
Thanks a lot, that's good stuff!
Let me add:
JavaBayes:
*JavaBayes* is a system that handles Bayesian networks: it calculates
marginal probabilities and expectations, produces explanations, performs
robustness analysis, and allows the user to import, create, modify and
export networks.
My collaborative platform is designed mainly with the aim of minimizing
discrimination (be it racial, gender, nationalistic, etc) by being open and
democratic. If there're other ideas that may help reduce discrimination,
I'd be eager to try them.
My observation is that when things are not
Linas:
I agree with your approach: don't use formal ontologies.
I have not implemented my system yet, but I suspect that not using
ontologies may decrease inference speed, especially for subsumption-type
queries. Hopefully the price to pay is not too great.
YKY
-
This list is sponsored
I have the intuition that Levin search may not be the most efficient way
to search programs, because it operates very differently from human
programming. I guess better ways to generate programs can be achieved by
imitating human programming -- using techniques such as deductive reasoning
and
My impression is that most machine learning theories assume a search space
of hypotheses as a given, so it is out of their scope to compare *between*
learning structures (eg, between logic and neural networks).
Algorithmic learning theory - I don't know much about it - may be useful
because it
Thanks for the input.
There's one perplexing theorem, in the paper about the algorithmic
complexity of programming, that the language doesn't matter that much, ie,
the algorithmic complexity of a program in different languages only differ
by a constant. I've heard something similar about the
On 11/8/07, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the serious contenders are a handful of small companies that
seem unlikely to fill out a self-assesment status report card
revealing thier weaknesses and strengths to the competition.
If you don't find some like-minded partners, you may not
I think we can use the AGIRI wiki for this purpose:
http://www.agiri.org/wiki/AGI_Projects
Afterall we've been using this list for several years, and the list has
maintained a fairly neutral stance throughout.
My entry for G0 is here:
http://www.agiri.org/wiki/Generic_AI
AGIRI should let wiki
On 11/1/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir: AI that is capable of general learning should be
able to also learn language processing, from the letters up.
Sounds wonderful. Anyone attempting that or even close?
In my G0 architecture, NLP is based on logical deduction and
On 7/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
His argument is primarily against underestimation of problem of
multiplicity of
representations, specific incarnation of lurking combinatorial explosion
problem.
Under logic-based paradigm, combinatorial explosion is due to high
branching
On 6/30/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NLP is often regarded as some sort of peripheral I/O system, potentially
allowing AGI to communicate, but in itself not part of AGI, not even worth
developing early on. But maybe NLP can be just an aspect of AGI reasoning,
and can be teached
On 7/6/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY I know what you're talking about -- using NL directly as a KR
language.
I suspect it's not that. Problems you talk about are specific for
particular bet on system bootstrap method. It assumes that you can
code enough capability in system
On 6/29/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY: I've talked to John Weng many times before, and I found that his AGI
has some problems but he wasn't very eager to talk about them.
MT: Is anyone in AGI eager to talk about their problems? My impression is
it's a universal failing.
On 6/27/07, Keta Meme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is from an article about a supposedly extra-terrestrial device. I do
not know how real or fictional is the device, but I think this section
relates to AGI and software in an entertaining sci-fi way.
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
Hi Pei,
I'm giving a presentation to CityU of Hong Kong new week, on AGI in general
and about my project. Can I use your listing of representative AGIs in
one slide?
Also, if I spend 1 slide to talk about NARS, what phrases would you
recommand? ;)
Thanks a lot!
YKY
-
This list is
On 6/19/07, Eric Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The modern feature is that whole peoples have chosen to reproduce at
half replacement level. In case you haven't thought about the
implications of that, that means their genes, for example, are
vanishing from the pool by a factor of 2 every 20
On 6/16/07, Panu Horsmalahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps people are more interested in the design of this AGI project, and
the likelyhood of it ever creating an human-level AGI. Also, are design
changes chosen democratically, by a leader/lead designer (you?), or how? I'm
also concerned,
On 6/11/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try to answer this and Mike Tintner's question at the same time. The
typical GOFAI engine over the past decades has had a layer structure
something like this:
Problem-specific assertions
Inference engine/database
Lisp
on top of the
On 6/13/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY, I think there are two better schemes for collaboration than the one
you've proposed:
-- the traditional for-profit company with equity and options based
compensation determined by a committee of trusted individuals
-- the
On 6/14/07, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if YKY was to succeed in coming up with a new hybrid organizational
structure, which could likely happen as there are definitely opportunities
for innovation judging by existing structures, there still needs to be the
traditional open
On 6/12/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think my scheme cannot be fair then the alternative of
traditional management can only be worse (in terms of fairness, which in
turn affects the quality of work being done). The situation is quite
analogous to that between a state-command
On 6/13/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A successful AI could do a superior job of dividing up the credit from
available historical records. (Anyone who doesn't spot this is not
thinking recursively.)
During the pre-AGI interim, people have got to make money and to enjoy
On 6/13/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't bother working with anyone who was seriously worried over
who got the credit for building a Singularity-class AI - no other
kind matters. There are two reasons for this, not just the obvious one.
Come on, there're no obvious
I keep getting the following message whenever I post to [agi].
It looks like spam. Can we get rid of it? Or is it just me?
YKY
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 13, 2007 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [agi] AGI Consortium [ZONEALARM
On 6/11/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me correct by saying: it *is* to
your advantage to exaggerate your contributions, but your peers won't allow
it.
Cool.
I'll then move back to my other point that is probably better phrased as
I don't
An additional idea: each member's vote could be weighted by the
member's total amount of contributions. This way, we can establish a
network of genuine contributors via self-organization, and protect against
mischief-makers, nonsense, or sabotage, etc.
YKY
-
This list is sponsored by
On 6/9/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best
interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate
them
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
But your peers in the network won't
Obviously innovation comes from all walks of life, be they opensource or
commercial people. But some entrepreneurs are more capable of appropriating
their inventions, eg Edison did *not* invent the light bulb, but he got
famous for commercializing and patenting it. Many people simply don't have
On 6/10/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best
interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate
them
MW Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
YKY But your peers in the
On 6/11/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to temporarily ignore my doubts about accurate assessments
to try to get my initial question answered yet again.
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me
I noticed a serious problem with credit attribution and allowing members
to branch outside of the mother project.
For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many members,
that is worth $C in the consortium. Suppose someone decides to start an
external project, then adding $c
On 6/8/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed a serious problem with credit attribution and allowing members
to branch outside of the mother project.
For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many
members, that is worth $C in the consortium. Suppose
On 6/7/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reasoning about Uncertainty (Paperback)
by Joseph Y. Halpern
BTW, the .chm version of this book can be easily obtained on the net, as are
many others you listed...
I also recommand J Pearl's 2 books (Probabilistic Reasoning and Causality).
On 6/6/07, Joel Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY,
A suggestion, if you really are motivated by $$ and getting rich, why
not focus on other much easier problems that will still potentially
make you bucket-loads money?
I have this slightly crazy idea of selling the project's AGI prototype
There're several reasons why AGI teams are fragmented and AGI designers
don't want to join a consortium:
A. believe that one's own AGI design is superior
B. want to ensure that the global outcome of AGI is friendly
C. want to get bigger financial rewards
(A) does not really prevent a founder
Hi Ben and Peter Voss,
I understand that transitioning to a Web 2.0-style will not be easy for
well-established projects. But sometimes a company needs to cannibalize its
own past...
Due to the fewer number of employees, conventional companies can only
explore a small subspace of the huge AGI
On 6/7/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is also
D. The other members of the consortiums philosophical approaches to
AGI share little in common with your own and the time spent trying to
communicate with the consortium about which class of system to
investigate would be better
On 6/5/07, Panu Horsmalahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, all we need to do is find 2 AGI designers who agree on something.
My guess is that *after* people see and discuss each other's ideas, they'll
be more likely to change their views and be able to synthesize them. At
first we may see a
101 - 200 of 442 matches
Mail list logo
