Is there anyone out there who has a sense that most of the work being done in
AI is still following the same track that has failed for fifty years now? The
focus on logic as thought, or neural nets as the bottom-up, brain-imitating
solution just isn't getting anywhere? It's the same thing,
On 2/18/07, Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You might check out D ( http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html ). Mind
you, it's still in the quite early days, and missing a lot of libraries
... which means you need to construct interfaces to the C versions.
Still, it answers several of
Larry Page, Google co-founder: We have some people at Google (who) are
really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large
scale, Page said to a packed Hilton ballroom of scientists. It's not as
far off as people think.
link:
http://news.com.com/2100-11395_3-6160372.html
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, John Scanlon wrote:
) Is there anyone out there who has a sense that most of the work being
) done in AI is still following the same track that has failed for fifty
) years now? The focus on logic as thought, or neural nets as the
) bottom-up, brain-imitating solution
Wow, I leave off email for two days and a 55-message Religious War
breaks out! ;-)
I promise this is nothing to do with languages I do or do not like (i.e.
it is non-religious...).
As many people pointed out, programming language matters a good deal
less that what you are going to use
John Scanlon wrote:
Is there anyone out there who has a sense that most of the work being
done in AI is still following the same track that has failed for fifty
years now? The focus on logic as thought, or neural nets as the
bottom-up, brain-imitating solution just isn't getting anywhere?
On 2/19/07, Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, John Scanlon wrote:
) Is there anyone out there who has a sense that most of the work being
) done in AI is still following the same track that has failed for fifty
) years now? The focus on logic as thought, or neural nets
On Sunday 18 February 2007 19:22, Ricardo Barreira wrote:
You can spend all the time you want sharpening your axes, it'll do you
no good if you don't know what you'll use it for...
True enough. However, as I've also mentioned in this venue before, I want to
be able to do general associative
Hi,
I was offline and missed the large discussion so let me just add my 2c:
Cobra is currently at a late alpha stage. There are some docs
(including a comparison to Python) and examples. (And pardon my plain
looking web site, but I have no graphics skills.) Here it is:
http://cobralang.com/
J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 19:22, Ricardo Barreira wrote:
You can spend all the time you want sharpening your axes, it'll do you
no good if you don't know what you'll use it for...
True enough. However, as I've also mentioned in this venue before, I want
It's pretty clear that humans don't
run FOPC as a native code, but that we can learn it as a trick.
I disagree. I think that Hebbian learning between cortical columns is
essentially equivalent to basic probabilistic
term logic.
Lower-level common-sense inferencing of the
On Monday 19 February 2007 16:08, Ben Goertzel wrote:
It's pretty clear that humans don't
run FOPC as a native code, but that we can learn it as a trick.
I disagree. I think that Hebbian learning between cortical columns is
essentially equivalent to basic probabilistic
term logic.
Bo Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Richard Loosemore wrote:
) Bo Morgan wrote:
)
) On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, John Scanlon wrote:
)
) ) Is there anyone out there who has a sense that most of the work being
) ) done in AI is still following the same track that has failed for
) ) fifty years
Ben Goertzel wrote:
It's pretty clear that humans don't run FOPC as a native code, but
that we can learn it as a trick.
I disagree. I think that Hebbian learning between cortical columns is
essentially equivalent to basic probabilistic term logic.
Lower-level common-sense inferencing
Richard Loosemore wrote:
There is a restriction in my case that enables me to get away without
having to solve the general problem.
I am curious to know what that restriction is? Offlist would be welcomed.
Thanks
Anna:)
On 2/19/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I leave
Sorry, I was slow to read.
Working on a thought is what makes it maybe one day a realtiy.
Nice post. Thanks.
Anna:)
On 2/19/07, John Scanlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
John Scanlon wrote:
Is there anyone out there who has a sense that most of the work being
done in
On 2/19/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I leave off email for two days and a 55-message Religious War
breaks out! ;-)
I promise this is nothing to do with languages I do or do not like (i.e.
it is non-religious...).
As many people pointed out, programming language matters
17 matches
Mail list logo
