I already gave support to the statement. I was simply correcting you on something you took the wrong way.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:54 AM, David Clark <[email protected]>wrote: > This response is for Aaron and John.**** > > ** ** > > Both, however, are mathematical. You are shadow boxing.**** > > ** ** > > Again, conclusions with no supporting arguments.**** > > ** ** > > Although I don’t put much value in “beliefs” or “intuition”, I am guilty > of a few as well.**** > > ** ** > > **1. **I believe that AGI can be created using software we have > today, on computers that exist today. AGI has not been created yet so I > have no proof that this is true, even though I am acting as if it is.**** > > **2. **I believe that AGI can’t move forward until programs have > the unlimited ability to create other programs. This hasn’t happened yet > and therefore I have no proof that this capability will be more successful > than current approaches BUT at least it isn’t one of the techniques that we > know doesn’t work.**** > > ** ** > > I am acting as if these 2 beliefs were true while I have no proof they > are. Guilty as charged.**** > > ** ** > > If people on this list don’t also believe my first assumption, I don’t > understand why they would be on this list!**** > > ** ** > > I have many arguments that point to my second assumption being correct but > no proof. Some very large programs have been made trying to create AI but > all have hit the problem that the difficulty and cost of creating very > large programs goes up exponentially. Most people who have thought about > AGI have come to the conclusion that it is a very complex problem (some > believe beyond human capabilities). This complexity can be achieved by > putting huge amounts of algorithms in the data and interpreting it or > creating huge amounts of code and data. The second option could be done by > many programmers but the size and complexity issues slow progress. Byte > code for my interpreter isn’t machine code so you could say that my system > is executing just data BUT the difference is flexibility and speed. My > interpreter is very fast and because it is a full language, almost any > problem can be coded using it. I think that my systems ability to > manipulate source code at compile and run time while still running is quite > unique even if some of my features are also in other systems. I know of no > other system where all the data, programs and features that are available > to a human programmer are also available to a running program, including > the documentation.**** > > ** ** > > Again, I have no proof that code generation is a valid path to AGI but I > have many arguments that point in that direction.**** > > ** ** > > I still believe that intelligent people should use valid debating > techniques in their discourse which means just stating conclusions isn’t > enough.**** > > ** ** > > David Clark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Aaron Hosford [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* January-10-13 8:31 AM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real > world reasoning**** > > ** ** > > Math != mathematical. CS should not be treated with less respect than > Physics, because it is not Math while Physics is not. Both, however, are > mathematical. You are shadow boxing.**** > > ** ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
