Aaron said: I get the impression you don't feel you can count on our collective ability to connect the dots between your key points, so you add more dots. But this just confounds the problem, because then we can't find the key points amid all the Baroque explanations and justifications. Remember the KISS principle. This is only a message group, not a dissertation. No one will/should judge you for failing to use strictly technical language, and if we miss something important, that will come to light later in the conversation.
Aaron, But that is what I did. I started out with some simple rough ideas. Take a look at the first message I wrote and tell me how that is not simple and to the point? I believe I can write a simple AGI program in a year. It would not convince the worse skeptics but I would hope to show programmers and enthusiasts that it can: 1. Learn the basics of a human language or a primitive version of one. 2. Learn simple things from discussion. 3. Learn to make (simple non-mathematical) correlations (between 'objects' of discussion) and generalize based on what it learned through language. 4. Learn the limitations on generalization and on the use of correlations as objectives. 5. Use reason-based-reasoning. However, it will not be perfect, and it will become overwhelmed by the complexity of acquired knowledge. Now let's say that 5 months go by and I haven't started the program. Well, if I am still reasonably healthy and have the same amount of free time that I have now that would indicate that my ideas probably weren't that great. Does that prove that my ideas are wrong? No, but it would indicate that I do not have every concept that I need to actually start working on the program. In other words, it would stand as evidence that there is something important that I haven't. I think this original message could be said to have met your recommendations. The majority of my personal comments are not intended as put downs, but I am often really surprised by the remarks people make. Like the one Ben made. (Can you guess which remark I am talking about?) I was more than a little surprised and shocked. I decided then that he was a total nut case and a fraud and I decided that I would have as little to do with him as possible. However, he later made some remarks which seemed much wiser to me and I thought that I might have actually gotten him to change for the better. From that perspective, I was able to see that his original jaw-droppingly intellectually degenerate remark was stunningly candid and I realized that he wasn't trying to be deceptive about it. So my original conclusion that he was a fraud was totally wrong. I also doubt if he is a total nut case because he did seem to be able to understand what I was getting at and he seemed to be willing to move the development of his project toward a more rational scientific method of defining validation. But you missed something important. I wonder if anyone noticed it. Jim Bromer On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > Your comments were inappropriate because you showed a lack of >> understanding of what I was trying to say. > > It is not easy for me to understand why you would ask a question like >> this. It is as if I was unable to express what I am trying to say. > > I hope this makes sense to someone. > > > Jim, > > I can see that you've got some interesting insights. But it is a little > frustrating because you won't just come out and say them. In communication, > simpler is better, so long as it's enough to get your point across. (This > is what makes well written haikus so powerful.) I get the impression you > don't feel you can count on our collective ability to connect the dots > between your key points, so you add more dots. But this just confounds the > problem, because then we can't find the key points amid all the Baroque > explanations and justifications. Remember the KISS principle. This is only > a message group, not a dissertation. No one will/should judge you for > failing to use strictly technical language, and if we miss something > important, that will come to light later in the conversation. > > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
