obvious rejoinder: how can you have "correct" handling of uncertainty? Perhaps you mean "effective/ most effective available". But it's worth picking up on, because there is a fundamental contradiction here in many thinkers - i.e. it may well be that people are still caught between two eras & haven't passed over fully.
Best example I can think of is William Calvin saying something like: "the conscious mind is clearly designed to deal with problematic decisions, where existing solutions won't work. The smartest mind is the one that can find the correct answer to those problems." Well, that's a definite self-contradiction. There is no correct answer to problematic decisions, only a calculated gamble. ----- Original Message ----- From: Benjamin Goertzel To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [agi] MONISTIC, CLOSED-ENDED AI VS PLURALISTIC, OPEN-ENDED AGI Your reactions please about to what extent any modern AGI incorporates uncertainty and provisionality of knowledge, and the need for rightness of other forms of AI. Well, a number of modern AGI designs (Novamente, NARS) are specifically founded on uncertain logic systems... in which correct handling of uncertainty is at the core... Generally, uncertain inference is a pretty hot area in mainstream "narrow AI" these days, but most of the work is on relatively simple manifestations like Bayes Nets... -- Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/780 - Release Date: 29/04/2007 06:30 ----- 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
