Well, since you asked, though I must ay that my only qualifications in
traditional AI is one course in my masters program, so I'm not sure why you'd
care.. :) I think the more you look into classic AI, the less impressive it is
from an explanatory POV. A lot of it seems to me like a kind of OR
More on non-algorithmic computing from Penrose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind
but I don't see how the brain can use quantum mechanics since it's
biochemical and operates on a different scale. Has anyone read
Penrose's book was an odd fish indeed. I liked the physics. I utterly
did not understand what he was talking about when he talked about AI.
Neither did anyone else, so far as I heard. I think he had a
prejudice against AI, and used this flimflammery to pretend he had
scientific reasons for
More on non-algorithmic computing from Penrose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind
I read this when it was published. I was interested because I had a
dog (more of a lame coyote) in the fight. I was not very impressed.
And subsequent work in the are did not improve the
As long as we're on AI and Math (whenever were we not) , recall that
the hard problems in AI are less matters of chess and more those of the
first five years of development. Here are some mathematicians
discussing same - Interesting to see how the conversation
unfolds.got some Category
Wow. Wish I could get in on that action.
~~James
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Mikhail Gorelkin gorel...@hotmail.com wrote:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/ai-overview.html
--Mikhail
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/ai-overview.html
--Mikhail
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
The good news here is that Neil Gershenfeld is leading the effort.
Very down to earth, lots of street cred, and a mensch besides.
One serious problem could be the proof that some languages are not
Turing-recognizable. In computer-speak, a language is a set of
strings, and any algorithm
] Rethinking artificial intelligence
Quoting Owen Densmore circa 09-12-11 09:58 AM:
All this translates to the more simple statement that computers cannot
solve all problems.
Note: The proof simply shows that the set of all sets of strings
(languages) is uncountable, while the set of algorithms
Most of early AI was heuristics, not algorithms. Some algorithms were
incorporated into expert systems, in the belief that if an algorithm
could solve the problem, fine; if not, heuristics might. But it was
always *might*. True, computers can't solve all problems, neither can
humans.
P.
Reunion of AI pioneers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/08sail.html?_r=1scp=1sq=markoff%20%22artificial%20intelligence%22st=cse
-tj
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Pamela McCorduck pam...@well.com wrote:
Most of early AI was heuristics, not algorithms. Some algorithms were
Didn't it take an algorithm (an Inference Engine) to process the
heuristics? Also show me some silicon that doesn't use an algorithm
somewhere. So do you suppose the Mind Machine Project is a way to break
free of this computing/algorithmic model?
Robert C
Pamela McCorduck wrote:
Most of
12 matches
Mail list logo
