Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: It really hurts to see you guys get involved in extraordinarily intricate discussions about the hypothetical machinery an AGI needs, when you haven't got a clue as to what an AGI does.
Mike, I think you are projecting one of your own inner conflicts onto us. You are a non-programmer; you have spent most of the past few years arguing vehemently with anyone who did not appear to agree with you; you don't seem to be willing to readily try to learn from others; your theor,y where you do not recognize that patterns can be used to build what you would call as free-form patterns, is not coherent; and you do not have a theory that actually details a hypothetically feasible computable model. If you do not have an actual theory (one that could be relevant to the construction of an actual AGI program) then you would have been wasting a great deal of your time and sense of prestige arguing in this group. I have found that it usually takes years for a person who is having some real trouble dealing with a significant projection to reach the point where he can begin to recognize that he does have a problem. As I write this I am asking myself if I am projecting my own doubts about my ability to write an actual agi program. The answer is - after seriously considering it I do not - is based on a standard that takes the difficulty of the project into account. So if I did write an agi program it would be weak. It would not be strong AI just because I have not solved the complexity problems. I would argue that the solution to these complexity problems is the contemporary problem but the point is that I am not presuming that I have a solid solution, just that I could write a weaker version of an actual agi program. So when I say that I think your statement, " you haven't got a clue as to what an AGI does," is a projection, I don't think I am projecting. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > Steve: Until that happens, AGI is a complete non-starter. > > Steve, > > This is such cobblers It really hurts to see you guys get involved in > extraordinarily intricate discussions about the hypothetical machinery an > AGI needs, when you haven't got a clue as to what an AGI does. > > If you have a robot that can do what the simplest organisms do - and that > is navigate a strip of rocky ground - *any* strip of such ground within > reason - then you have an AGI /sub-AGI. And you'll also have a commercially > useful robot. > > Now that'll certainly be hard, but organisms can do it with just a few > hundred or thousand neurons, and no differential equations, maths, or logic > - difficult to believe, I know, but it's true. So it won't be *that* hard. > > Start with the problems an AGI has to solve. > > What would you need for a simple robotic rover that can navigate any rocky > terrain ? (a problem BTW which roboticists are actually addressing right > now). > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
