Ed -- Just a quick comment: Mark actually read a bunch of the proprietary, NDA-required Novamente documents and looked at some source code (3 years ago, so a lot of progress has happened since then). Richard didn't, so he doesn't have the same basis of knowledge to form detailed comments on NM, that Mark does.
-- Ben On Nov 12, 2007 11:35 AM, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry. I guess I did misunderstand you. > > If you have time I wish you could state the reasons why you find it > lacking as efficiently as has Mark Waser. > > Ed Porter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI? > > > Edward W. Porter wrote: > > Richard Loosemore wrote in a Sun 11/11/2007 11:09 PM post > > > > > >>RICHARD####> You are right. I have only spent about 25 years working > >>on > > this > > problem. Perhaps, no matter how bright I am, this is not enough to > > understand Novamente's promise. > > > > ED####> There a many people who have spent 25 years working on AI who > > have not spent the time to try to understand the multiple threads that > > make up the Novamente approach. From the one paper I read from you, as > > I remember it, your major approach to AI was based on a concept of > > complexity in which it was hard-for-humans-to-understand the > > relationship between the lower level of the system and the higher level > > functions you presumably want it to have. This is very different than > > the Novamente approach, which involves complexity, but not so much at an > > > architectural level, but rather at the level of what will emerge in the > > self-organizing gen/comp network of patterns and behaviors that > > architecture is designed to grow, all under the constant watchful eye -- > > > and selective weeding and watering -- of its goal and reward systems. > > As I understand it, the complexity in Novamente is much more like that > > in an economy in which semi-rational actors struggle to find and make a > > niche at which they can make a living, than the somewhat more anarchical > > > complexity in the cellular automata Game Of Life. > > I am sorry, but this is a rather enormous misunderstanding of the claim > I made. Too extensive for me to be able to deal with in a list post. > > > > > So perhaps you are like most people who have spent a career in AI, in > > that the deep learning you have obtained has not spend enough time > > thinking about the pieces of Novamente-like approaches. But it is > > almost certain that that 25 years worth of knowledge would make it much > > easier for you to understand Novamente-like approach than all but a very > > > small percent of this planet/s people, if you really wanted to. > > > >> >ED####> I am sure you are smart enough to understand its promise if > > you wanted to. Do you? > > > >>RICHARD####> I did want to. > > > > I did. > > > > I do. > > > > ED####> Great. If you really do, I would start reading the papers at > > ___http://www.novamente.net/papers/_. Perhaps Ben could give you a > > better reading list than I. > > > > I don't know about you, Richard, but given my mental limitations, I > > often find I have to read some parts of paper 2 to 10 times to > > understand them. Usually much is unsaid in most papers, even the well > > written ones. You often have to spend time filling in the blanks and > > trying to imagine how what its describing would actually work. Much of > > my understanding of the Novamente approach not only comes from a broad > > range of reading and attending lectures in AI, micro-electronic, and > > brain science, but also a lot of thinking about what I have read and > > heard from other, and about what I have observed over decades of my own > > thought processes. > > There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, Ed. I read all of the > Novamente papers a couple of years ago. My own thinking had already > gone to that point and (in my opinion) well beyond it. > > You are implying that perhaps I do not understand it well enough. I > understand it, understand a very wide range of issues that surround it, > and also understand what i see as some serious limitations (some of > which are encapsulated in my complexity paper). > > Thanks for your concern, but understanding the Novamente approach is not > my problem. > > ----- > 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/?&; > > ----- > 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/?&; > ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=64185312-b1765d
