On 10/3/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think your notion that post-grads with powerful machines would only
> operate in the space of ideas that don't work is unfair.

Yeah, i can agree - it was harsh.  My real intention was to suggest
that NOT having a bigger computer is not excuse for not yet having a
design that works.  IF you find a design that works, the bigger
computer will be the inevitable result.

> Your last paragraph actually seems to make an argument for the value of
> clock cycles because it implies general intelligences will come through
> iterations.  More opps/sec enable iterations to be made faster.

I also believe that general intelligence will require a great deal of
cooperative effort.  The frameworks discussion (Richard, et al) could
provide positive pressure toward that end.  I feel we have a great
deal of communications development in order to even begin to express
the essential character of the disparate approaches to the problem,
let alone be able to collaborate on anything but the most basic ideas.
 I don't have a solution (obviously) but I have a vague idea of a type
of problem.

This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:

Reply via email to