Bob Mottram wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that
you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to
automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year.
It's worth noting in this connection that once you get up to the level of
mammals, everything is very high compliance, low stiffness, mostly serial
joint architecture (no natural Stewart platforms, although you can of course
grab something with two hands if need be) typically with significant
On 11/02/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that state of the art is just now getting to dynamically-stable-only
biped walkers. I've seen a couple of articles in the past year, but it
certainly isn't widespread, and it remains to be seen how real.
Famous robots such as
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that
somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will
gradually increase in intelligence until their sum total amounts to a
full
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
Hmmm. I'd suspect you'd spend all your time and effort organizing the people.
Orgs can grow that fast if they're grocery stores or something else the new
hires already pretty much understand, but I don't see that happening smoothly
in a pure research setting.
I
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that
somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will
gradually increase in
From the rewrite-in-progress of the User Manual --
1.3 Does MindForth think?
The whole purpose of Mind.Forth is to think. It is an
embodiment of the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum --
I think, therefore I am. Mind.Forth does indeed think,
but the real questions here are, how does Mind.Forth
think,
