Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE=====> I'm sorry, but this is not addressing the actual
issues involved.
You are implicitly assuming a certain framework for solving the problem
of representing knowledge ... and then all your discussion is about
whether or not it is feasible to implement that framework (to overcome
various issues to do with searches that have to be done within that
framework).
But I am not challenging the implementation issues, I am challenging the
viability of the framework itself.
ED PORTER=====> So what is wrong with my framework? What is wrong with a
system of recording patterns, and a method for developing compositions and
generalities from those patterns, in multiple hierarchical levels, and for
indicating the probabilities of certain patterns given certain other pattern
etc?
I know it doesn't genuflect before the alter of complexity. But what is
wrong with the framework other than the fact that it is at a high level and
thus does not explain every little detail of how to actually make an AGI
work?
RICHARD LOOSEMORE=====> These models you are talking about are trivial
exercises in public
relations, designed to look really impressive, and filled with hype
designed to attract funding, which actually accomplish very little.
Please, Ed, don't do this to me. Please don't try to imply that I need
to open my mind any more. Th implication seems to be that I do not
understand the issues in enough depth, and need to do some more work to
understand you points. I can assure you this is not the case.
ED PORTER=====> Shastri's Shruiti is a major piece of work. Although it is
a highly simplified system, for its degree of simplification it is amazingly
powerful. It has been very helpful to my thinking about AGI. Please give
me some excuse for calling it "trivial exercise in public relations." I
certainly have not published anything as important. Have you?
The same for Mike Collins's parsers which, at least several years ago I was
told by multiple people at MIT was considered one of the most accurate NL
parsers around. Is that just a "trivial exercise in public relations"?
With regard to Hecht-Nielsen's work, if it does half of what he says it does
it is pretty damned impressive. It is also a work I think about often when
thinking how to deal with certain AI problems.
Richard if you insultingly dismiss such valid work as "trivial exercises in
public relations" it sure as hell seems as if either you are quite lacking
in certain important understandings -- or you have a closed mind -- or both.
Ed,
You have no idea of the context in which I made that sweeping dismissal.
If you have enough experience of research in this area you will know
that it is filled with bandwagons, hype and publicity-seeking. Trivial
models are presented as if they are fabulous achievements when, in fact,
they are just engineered to look very impressive but actually solve an
easy problem. Have you had experience of such models? Have you been
around long enough to have seen something promoted as a great
breakthrough even though it strikes you as just a trivial exercise in
public relations, and then watch history unfold as the "great
breakthrough" leads to .... absolutely nothing at all, and is then
quietly shelved by its creator? There is a constant ebb and flow of
exaggeration and retreat, exaggeration and retreat. You are familiar
with this process, yes?
This entire discussion baffles me. Does it matter at all to you that I
have been working in this field for decades? Would you go up to someone
at your local university and tell them how to do their job? Would you
listen to what they had to say about issues that arise in their field of
expertise, or would you consider your own opinion entirely equal to
theirs, with only a tiny fraction of their experience?
Richard Loosemore
-----
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=71711822-0e911b
