I don't want to knock anybody else's approach because I don't know what will work. But, if there were a kind of overarching framework that subsumes all the ways that people like to start AGI it might help.
Mike On 7/16/13, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike A: >> my book argues for a philosophy-first starting >> point > It would be good if s.o. has got the message which Deutsch and I agree > on. A "philosophy first" approach means simply "first define the kind of > problems an AGI must solve." Or: "first define what intelligence is > [incl. both the two halves of intelligence, represented by AGI and > narrow AI] " In fact, that was many people's first instinct. There > was a v. extended discussion a few years back here about the nature of > intelligence. But basically, everyone gave up in the end and ploughed on > with their architectures - or as Ben concluded, "I'll know it when I > see it" . (He hasn't seen it yet). > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
