From: "Alan Grimes: > Boris Kazachenko wrote: >> in just about everyone here, yourself including. Your "pegs & holes" >> suggestion is truly Mike-worthy. Yes, a GI must be able to do it, no, >> doing it is not an indication of possessing GI. Designing algorithms >> that can do simple things is an obsession of simple minds, - the kind >> that can't be bothered with generality & scalability. > > "Simple" problems are precisely the problems that computers have the > most trouble with. =P > > If my example is so simple, then go ahead and implement it and > demonstrate how simple it is. ;)
You don't get it. If my algorithm does your pegs & holes because I specifically designed it to do so, then the success won't tell you anything about its ability to scale beyond that. And if it does so as a trivial side-effect of general learning, then I won't be posting here. My point is, if you need "evidence" (that is, can't evaluate an approach theoretically), then you are a crackpot, in GI terms. http://www.cognitivealgorithm.info ------------------------------------------- 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
