On 4/28/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that a *solution to NLP* is not a *solution to AGI*, so your > argument does not apply.I think that this depends upon your definition of intelligence and also assumes that a solution to NLP is not enough to boostrap the rest. I could argue the point either way. I think that NLP is difficult enough that it will put you a huge way along the path to AGI (because, fundamentally, language *requires* intelligence).
I thought that you implied that the solution to NLP does not need to be general in its cognitive capacity. AGI could reuse NLP as part of its general inference engine, that would be interesting. Much depends on how subtle the NLP solution is, e.g. if it resolves ambiguities all on its own then it is "pretty much" intelligent, but I think it doesn't need to to be a viable NLP solution. The ambiguities can be collapsed further down the way. ----- 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
