Roughly - AGI *research* is about developing, testing and exploring theories and approaches.
AGI *development* is about building practical systems. This requires having a workable theory/ approach (or an awful lot of luck!). Both benefit from having well defined plans/ goals, however a development project will almost certainly fail totally without clear *practical* goals/ milestones. Pei does research (great stuff, I might add). I personally think it a pity that his approach is not part of any development project. My company, a2i2, spent many years in a research phase. Two years ago we transitioned into a development company. We obviously still do research, but it is now targeted at specific sub-problems, our overall AGI theory is in place. Lastly, in theory you could come up with a complete AGI design that was quite agnostic about specific applications; plug in senses and actuators and train the system (and/ or let in learn from its environment). Practically, such an open-ended approach will suffer far too many inefficiencies, and is unnecessarily hard. You really want the crucial feedback of practical performance (or non-performance, as the case may be) to help guide any R&D. Peter Voss -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [agi] The role of incertainty On 5/1/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Define the type of problems it addresses which might be [for all I know] > *understanding and precis-ing a set of newspaper stories .... Pei Wang replied: >If one of the above problem is solved by an AGI system, it should be >the result of learning of the system, rather than an innate capability >built into the system. ... ----- 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
