Yeah, I think that it is unlikely that the software (primarily commercial)
sector will come up with a solution to the problem before dedicated projects
will, and I also think that when people say that brain emulation is a viable
option that they are ignoring the fact (after they have a way of
[susaro.com]
This development environment goes by the name of SAFAIRE (which stands
for 'Safe and Friendly AI Research Environment', and is pronounced *
sapphire*).
Interesting... Sapphire is the name of my project.
---
agi
Archives:
You would require visual intelligence to build these nanobots.
Not necessarily visual, but spatial. They are not synonymous.
It is impossible to bootstrap perceptual grounding from a purely symbolic
AGI. It does not know how to build 3D robots.
Ah-ah-ah... be careful here, remember the big
Mike, what is your stance on vector images?
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
Well, I figured the point of the question would be pretty clear seeing as
you were claiming a logical/mathematical description of images would be
inadequate, but I don't think that could be further from the truth...
You could recreate a large amount of detail in an image using mathematics
and it
Mike, here's your bucket.
Circle(0,50,10)
Circle(0,45,10)
Ring(0,45,6,8)
Cylinder(0,50,45,10)
Cylinder(0,45,-10,8)
Disk(0,-10,8)
- Joe
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
I have seen very good and productive threads on this list, but they tend to
be the exception. Hence I mostly just delete the items from the list, and
follow the occasional thread that looks interesting or involves people who
have posted more reasonable items in the past
Yeah, that is typically
Seems reasonable to me.
Honestly, it should be up to those proposing their theory to explain it in
full detail off-list and then link to it for discussion. But... it seems
things are re-explained time after time. If they were properly explained
somewhere appropriate I would think they would be
I really like this idea. I am a much bigger fan of forums than mailing
lists.
How many of our list members are severely limited by bandwidth concerns?
(too much so to move to a forum platform?)
---
agi
Archives:
I do a lot of lurking around here, I read about 60% of what is posted and I
would definitely love to see more engineering-specific content. I myself am
working on a pet theory and have a substantial amount of code written... so
to me, anything testable, downloadable, and provable hits a good chord
Derek, I am in FULL AGREEMENT. I by far prefer the forum.
Frankly I get tired of scrolling through tons and tons of layered quotes,
and poor formatting. (just a personal preference though). But if we did move
to the forum I would like to see some LaTeX support. I think that would be a
blessing!
Peter, do you think they would be less overwhelmed if they were given the
option of looking at the same content through the use of a forum?
I think it would be far easier to wade through...
- Joseph
---
agi
Archives:
12 matches
Mail list logo
