On 4/29/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is something fascinating going on here - if you could suspend your desire for precision, you might see that you are at least half-consciously offering contributions as well as objections. (Tune in to your constructive side).
suspended. I do most of my best thinking half-consciously. You made an interesting point about the response that AI should have for the directive, "Move from A to B or D" - That is to ask for clarification. I think that is an important point. We seem to expect "computers" to correctly do our bidding even when we aren't sure what we actually want. (ex: Google has to guess what I'm looking for if I enter "AJAX", since I just looked up javascript I am probably not interested in the cleaning product) There are context clues, which are important to grasp - which I think is what Richard was suggesting (AGI had better be able to figure out context because people assume so much) It seems extra daunting to expect a machine to divine this context when a human can simply ask for it. fwiw - Mike, thanks for understanding my point over just the words in my post. I feel it is the sender/author's responsibility to write clearly in order that the message content is easily consumed. It's the reader's task to overcome the transmission errors and to fill in the gaps where the sender is unclear. I believe this is a truism that must be on the table when attempting to build machine intelligence which interacts with humans. ----- 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
