On 3/23/07, rooftop8000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose there was an AGI framework that everyone could add
> their ideas to.. What properties should it have? I listed
> some points below. What would it take for
> you to use the framework? You can add points if you like.
>
On 3/24/07, Jey Kottalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand. Is the hypothesis that if we have enough people
writing and contributing AI modules according to their conception of
intelligence, and we wire up the modules up to each other, then AGI
will {result, emerge, pop out}? This doesn't sound like a feasible
approach. And, if there isn't a coherent picture of how the modules
are supposed to interact, how can you choose the design of
infrastructure like the language, organization, and knowledge base?
This seems backwards, to choose a design for the infrastructure then
fit an AGI design to the infrastructure. It's analogous to "I don't
know to build a house, but I know I want to use a sledgehammer to do
it." :-)
I think Jey's comment is reasonable. It seems impractical to start a
collaborative AI project without having an AGI design which specifies what
modules are there and how they communicate.
A more conventional approach is to fix an AGI architecture and then recruit
people to contribute the modules; but this requires people to agree on the
architecture (knowledge representation etc), which is hard.
We certainly have enough talented people here to build one AGI *if* we can
agree on the theory. In reality, we don't, so the available
manpower gets divided into small projects and becomes inadequate.
Perhaps we can start a democratic / voting process to bring about
collaboration?
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/?list_id=303
