That was my plan. :) My time is better spent actually building the system, even if proving my point in this debate were my one and only goal, since nothing short of building it will work to that end. Fortunately it's not my one & only goal (or a goal of mine at all, now), so I can walk away without being disappointed. As for the rest of you, you and Jim in particular, I appreciate the opportunity to put my ideas out there for some *constructive* criticism. Your ideas and feedback are immensely valuable to me.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre On Oct 25, 2012 12:22 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: Aaron, Don't take it personally. Be free. It may be just a lack of vision on Mike's part, or a psychological / physiological disposition towards narcissism: an actual inability to see things from perspectives other than his own. It may just be undiagnosed. No matter. Then again, I've never met him, but Mike Tinter may not actually be a real person, he could just be someone pulling your chain in a made up account. I don't know. Be free, and prove by demonstrating the working prototype. No one can argue with success. Well, actually they can, because intelligence is that elusive thing that we haven'tyet acquired. And to some, once it's defined, that is no longer is intelligence. Cheers, and good luck on your enterprise. Learn something and share it. ~PM. Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:04:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [agi] The Fundamental Misunderstanding in AGI [was Superficiality] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] You won't stop saying I'm being abstract until I show you the code actually doing it. If you're not going to be satisfied with anything but the final results, I guess you'll just have to wait and see. I'm not going to bother explaining anything else to you, because when I do, you say I didn't. I'm just going to tell you that your unfounded, nonsensical claims are just that. My system, once implemented, *can* understand the first 3 of those sentences, using mechanisms I've already started working on and described to you. (This is because I already knew language was "an unbelievably complicated thing", and I chose semantic nets specifically because they *are* up to the challenge.) As for the fourth, it's a shortcoming of my parser, not the system I'm building on top of it, that it doesn't *yet* look at similar words when a sentence makes no sense. When I have time, I'll revisit the parser to add this (easy to implement, but computationally expensive) functionality, but it's not my focus right now. So, if you want to continue on the attack as if I haven't rebutted every single accusation of inadequacy you've made, go for it. I don't have to answer to you anyway, and I'm not going to keep doing it of my own free will when it accomplishes nothing. I'm tired of this silly game, and I'm going to go have some real conversations with people who bother to listen and think about things before they reject them out of hand, and who bother to give a specific *reason* they are rejecting them, instead of saying nothing more informative than "you suck" or "your ideas/tools suck". 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
