Mike Archibold said: It seems like the mega brain research projects get 10 years (BRAIN initiative and the HBP) -- somebody else is paying the bills.
But the independent researcher/developer is paying his own way -- so it's a lot faster schedule, one or two years! ;) ------------------ I guess that there is some truth to that. However, my feeling is that I have a simple model that I can use to get a jump start on the program. The mega-brain research projects are starting at the bottom (as in bottom up). The simplicity of my starting model means that (if my theories are good then) as I encounter problems I should be able to improve the algorithms with feasible simple modifications. Currently, most AI/AGI algorithms work really well in some cases but not very well in other cases. I expect that if my theories are reasonable I will run into the same problem. But, because I have my simple model for AGI is central to AGI then I think I may be able to improve on the model gradually. I would expect the diminishing returns problem, but I can live with that. My criticism of contemporary central paradigms are that they are paradigms of narrow AI and all the AGI stuff is all about going crazy over getting narrow AI algorithms to act like they are AGI. Of course it can be done, but if you can find some simple insights into the nature of the thing and those insights are technologically feasible, then that is a much better way to get started. OK, so there might be a bit of manure in there. But if you know anything about growing plants then you know that fertilizer is an important part of the process. I thought I came up with a compelling argument about why the use of a discrete model would be better than using a weighted model to advance the field right now. I realized that no one would be convinced but it might make some people think. Then as I thought about it, I realized that it was not only a compelling argument, but that it might explain a lot. I am not going to tell you what that argument was (because I already have talked about the parts of the argument) but I will give you a hint. I have been stuck for years thinking about the recognition problem. But look what we do in this group. We are not sweating over our problems recognizing something but on getting other people to recognize what we are talking about. (OK, so we feel comfortable about interpreting what is going on so that may not seem like a big problem for us.) But, none the less, I have been looking at the AGI problem as a pure recognition problem without seeing it as an expression problem. I used expression in my theories (like imaginatively projecting previously acquired knowledge onto a situation in order to compare a conjecture about the situation with the situation) but notice that even this leaves the fundamental expression problem out. Most of my effort is: How do I get other people to understand what I am talking about? Jim Bromer Mike Archibold said: It seems like the mega brain research projects get 10 years (BRAIN initiative and the HBP) -- somebody else is paying the bills. But the independent researcher/developer is paying his own way -- so it's a lot faster schedule, one or two years! ;) On 5/27/13, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > So I will say that > if my idea is right I should definitely have something to show within 2 > years. ------------------------------------------- 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
