I mean what I say - wh. is it needs the slightest evidence. Processing a
diagram of dots is not evidence of AGI - you have to provide evidence of the
problems your system can solve, and how it can "take-off" - proceed to solve an
endless diversity of further problems in new fields. (Another one or two will
do to begin with - although I'm personally v. confident that any AGI solution
will clearly and immediately demonstrate a capacity for endless take-off within
constraints - as say an infant does).
Endlessly proclaiming the miracle of your method with zero evidence - wh. is
what you have been doing - puts you into the crackpot class, as Alan has
pointed out, along with other well known AGI-ers.
In your case evidence is esp. necessary, since sets have zero capacity for
diversification.
From: Sergio Pissanetzky
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:02 PM
To: AGI
Subject: RE: [agi] Happy 100th Birthday Alan Turing - No, computers will never
think, but machines will!
Mike,
if you mean that the theory needs more scrutiny, then I agree. If you mean that
AGI does not need a principle, then I disagree.
Sergio
AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
