Bryan,
*I'm interested!*
Continuing...
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bishop kanz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote:
Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of
used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging
This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's
kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their
current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems.
I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical
solutions to
Ben,
Genescient has NOT paralleled human mating habits that would predictably
shorten life. They have only started from a point well beyond anything
achievable in the human population, and gone on from there. Hence, while
their approach may find some interesting things, it is unlikely to find the
We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics
refutes your claim ;p ...
Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their
long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only
from young flies.
Michael rose's UCI lab
David,
I am not a mathematician although I do a lot
of computer-related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed
toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some
sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here)
provide such a substantial benefit to
Jim,
Fair enough. My apologies then. I just often see your posts on SAT or other
very formal math problems and got the impression that you thought this was
at the core of AGI's problems and that pursuing a fast solution to
NP-complete problems is the best way to solve it. At least, that was my
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical
solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we
face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What
Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria?
The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be capable
of being scaled up is a narrow AI criterion.
The proper criterion is diversifiable. If your system can say navigate a
DARPA car through a grid of city
I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI
criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer
definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the
tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate your idea that AGI has
to be
I think I may understand where the miscommunication occurred. When we talk
about scaling up an AGI program we are - of course - referrring to improving
on an AGI program that can work effectively with a very limited amount of
referential knowledge so that it would be able to handle a much greater
To respond in kind ,you along with virtually all AGI-ers show an inability to
understand or define the problems of AGI - i.e. the end-problems that an AGI
must face, the problems of creativity vs rationality. You only actually deal
in standard, narrow AI problems.
If you don't understand
I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that
a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is
that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two
statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok,
maybe
Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has made
me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires
understand the constraints that problems impose on a solution. So, it's sort
of a unbelievably complex constraint satisfaction problem. What we've
I guess what I was saying was that I can test my mathematical theory and my
theories about primitive judgement both at the same time by trying to find
those areas where the program seems to be good at something. For example, I
found that it was easy to write a program that found outlines where
Ben,
It seems COMPLETELY obvious (to me) that almost any mutation would shorten
lifespan, so we shouldn't expect to learn much from it. What particular
lifespan-shortening mutations are in the human genome wouldn't be expected
to be the same, or even the same as separated human populations. Hmmm,
Well both. Though much of the control could be remote depending on
bandwidth.
Also, one robot could benefit from the eyes of many as they would all be
internetworked to a degree.
John
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
Your remarks about WiFi echo my own view. Should a
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing
prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure
has
to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical.
I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.
And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.
But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked
mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy
issues...
John
From:
18 matches
Mail list logo
