[email protected] said:I've been trying to patiently wait until Jim's done to see if there was anything that even could be reasonably responded to. But I haven't been holding out much hope. When he used the word "discreet" instead of "discrete" way back when, I really got the feeling he doesn't have the background for meaningful contribution. And I've only seen vague abstractions with not enough precise usage or specifics to indicate how any work at all could even be done. And I think I saw the word "relativistic". To use physics jargon is a bad sign, if you aren't using it in its technically correct sense. --------------------- I consider this criticism to be a strong positive indicator about my efforts. I have heard many criticisms like this in the past and there was no way that I could refute them because actual AGI is beyond the fringe of feasibility. However, in the past I have always said that I have a lot of good ideas but because of the complexity problem I did not know how to implement them. What I am saying now is that I think I have a way to advance the science a little bit even though I cannot overcome all of the problems that complexity present. So the fact that someone can "patiently wait" to see if there was anything that could be reasonably responded to but was not able to find anything worth talking about shows me that I am talking about something that most people in this group do not understand even though I have been using very simplistic terms which were shaped somewhat tediously so that readers could keep track of the sentences. Sorry for posting another meta comment but in the past this kind of criticism was just a momentary annoyance and did not represent something positive for me because I did not have a solution to the problems of AGI complexity. But this time there is something that is a little different. I think I can reduce the complexity slightly. The ideas that I am talking about are reasonable so this kind of criticism is a positive indicator for me. Jim Bromer Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:35:20 -0500 To: [email protected]
I've been trying to patiently wait until Jim's done to see if there was anything that even could be reasonably responded to. But I haven't been holding out much hope. When he used the word "discreet" instead of "discrete" way back when, I really got the feeling he doesn't have the background for meaningful contribution. And I've only seen vague abstractions with not enough precise usage or specifics to indicate how any work at all could even be done. And I think I saw the word "relativistic". To use physics jargon is a bad sign, if you aren't using it in its technically correct sense. I hate to be mean-spirited, and i'm kind of on the side of many of the nay-sayers, but seems like this forums is still a little bit angry. It's been a rough week for America, I know, but i'm hoping we my try to cool off a little be and have more constructive sorts of contributions, which I have at least striven for.andi On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "Mike Tintner" <[email protected]> wrote: JB:I don't have time for your crap right now. To quote myself: ”let’s see what you can do – if anything - (apart from being predictable and making excuses)” From: Jim Bromer Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:14 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. You have some good questions but they are mixed in with a lot of garbiage. I wish you could learn some self-control so we could talk about the central issues. I don't have time for your crap right now. Jim Bromer 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
