Jim, Tonight, define 10 requirements for your program. (e.g., "1. It should do X", "2. It should take Y as input", etc.)Then start coding it tomorrow. Keep it simple. Let us know in two weeks when you're done with your minimum viable product. I recognize analysis paralysis. To defeat it, take micro steps in the right direction. For example, to start coding you need to organize your project folder hierarchy. Fill it in with components you think will be needed. Then find any libraries or tools you think you'll need. That'll help get the ball rolling and the juices flowing. Good Luck, ~PM
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] A Very Simple AGI Project Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:17:48 -0400 I think that technology typically advances when some simple preliminary experiments lead to insights which can eventually be combined to push the technology past some challenging goal. Even if I was able to create a program that would work the way I want it to work, it still could still be argued that it wouldn't be an AGI program because it would have to go through further development in order to make it more general. (I am not expecting the program to work just the way I would like it to work.) The attempt to define the technical demarcation between narrow AI and AGI is very difficult and this has really blurred insight into how you might find a simplified model of solution. What we can do is come up with -types- of situations which would seem to require some general intelligence to handle them, and then, based on experiments on those types of situation, try to develop a program which can deal with them. Needless to say, we need to demonstrate that the program would then work in many more situations.Jim Bromer > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:24:01 -0700 > Subject: Re: [agi] A Very Simple AGI Project > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > 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/303/24379807-f5817f28 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com 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
