Hi Ben and others
The way I see it, we are close to building a complete AGI, but there are gaps to be filled in the details. In my opinion one thing that Ben can do better to become a leader in AGI R&D is to delegate tasks to other people / groups, ie adopt a division-of-labor strategy.
I think the main obstacle is that we have developed different ways of tackling similar problems. For example, for some historical reasons I tend to prefer symbolic logic over neural networks, predicate logic over term logic, sentential representation over graphical representation, Prolog and C# over Lisp and Java, and a mix of probability and fuzzy logic over pure Bayesianism, to name a few idiosyncratic preferences. I don't think my set of preferences is the only way of building an AGI, and there are probably many ways to achieve the same goal.
The reason why I don't use Ben's hypergraph representation is simply because I don't even know what exactly he's doing with hypergraphs.
So, the way I see it, the question is how to reconcile different ways of doing things so that we can work together and achieve our common goal more effectively.
Since there is no unique solution to the AGI problem, and each of us may have some near-optimal solutions in some domains and not-so-optimal solutions in other domains, and probably no one has THE optimal solution, we can perhaps make some compromising and eclectic arrangements.
I know that doing this would involve some pain. It's a tautology that everyone thinks his/her solution is the best solution (otherwise s/he would have changed it).
How about this: we can make a list of conflict issues, and try to resolve them by having a mix of decision making by different parties. It doesn't have to follow rigid rules.
At least I'm willing to make the first step...
YKY
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
