--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > > > Has anyone noticed that people who have studied AGI all their lives, > > like > > Kurzweil and Minsky, aren't trying to build one? > > > > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > I don't get it ... some of us who have studied AGI all our lives ARE > trying > > to build one... > > Yeah, ditto. > > I don't think the people who stopped did so because the TASK is > incredibly hard, I think it is because, using their techniques, their > VERSION of the task was impossibly hard. > > In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that the task could turn out to be > not nearly as hard as is widely assumed (it might even be easy). The > reason I say that is that there is a glaringly different approach to AI > that no one has tried in earnest, but which, on those few occasions that > anyone came near to trying it, worked astonishingly well. That approach > (basically the connectionist one) only stopped working when people > inadvertently tried to 'improve' it to make it more rigorous. > > We'll see.
We'll see. Everyone thinks they know how to solve the problem, but then nobody can even agree on what the problem is. If a robot can solve Rubik's cube, is it smarter than a thermostat? http://my.fit.edu/~pierrel/RASSL-Images/RASSL-Pics/RUBOT.mpg -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
