I think what is meant by "simple" in the agi context surrounds the
issue of designating some starting point that is manageable. There
are so many possibilities for a START out there: math-first start
(develop the correct formulas), logic-first, psychology-first,
neuroscience-first, physics-first, old-AI first ("we just need the
right algorithms").... my book argues for a philosophy-first starting
point (I finally got it sent to the printer!).
I think we are all looking for some way of orienting ourselves and in
so doing reducing our starting point to a minimum of concepts that can
be handled.
Mike Archbold
On 7/16/13, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is no such thing as "simple" AGI. Otherwise the problem would
> have been solved 50 years ago.
>
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected]
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: 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
