On 3/24/07, rooftop8000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- "YKY (Yan King Yin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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}?
The richer your set of algorithms and representations, the more likely
the correct ones will emerge/pop out as you put it. I don't really like
the idea of hoping for extra functionality to emerge.
> >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?
Because i think we need more than 1 knowledge base in the system,
and more than 1 type of communication. Why should neuralnet-Bayesian talk
use the same representation as communication between logic modules.
But maybe making a framework that is general enough for all those
things is impossible?
> > 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." :-)
The framework should facilitate the collaboration, and not limit
the things inside of it. I hope it's more like "how do i build a house
so everyone can live in it together"
>
> 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.
I hoped someone on the list was smart enough to find one
>
> 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
>
my vote goes to any framework that is broad enough
to make
-rule based/ logic parts
-parts with number-based neural networks etc
-...
and allows different parts to be developed independently and
added easily
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
-----
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
-----
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
