Kevin wrote: > We often intelligently use things we do not understand. Computers, > automobiles, our brains, quarks, and so on. Why can't an AGI use words it > does not actually understand, so long as it uses the word properly and > accomplishes the desired result?
I think it's fine for an AGI to use *some* words it doesn't understand well. However, my conjecture is that in order for it to use *any* words with true fluency, it needs to have a solid core of words that it *does* understand (based on grounding in experience). Based on this core, it can then talk through its digital butt about a lot of other stuff ;-) ben g ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
