>RICHARD LOOSEMORE=====> 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?
ED PORTER=====> Richard, the fact that a certain percent of theories and
demonstrations are false and/or misleading does not give you the right to
dismiss any theory or demonstration that counters your position in an
argument as
"trivial exercises in public relations, designed to look
really impressive, and filled with hype designed to attract funding, which
actually accomplish very little"
without at least giving some supporting argument for your dismissal.
Otherwise you could deny any aspect of scientific, mathematical, or
technological knowledge, no matter how sound, that proved inconvenient to
whatever argument you were making.
There are people who argue in that dishonest fashion, but it is questionable
how much time one should spend conversing with them. Do you want to be such
a person?
The fact that one of the pieces of evidence you so rudely dismissed is a
highly functional program that has been used by many other researchers,
shows the blindness with which you dismiss the arguments of others.
>RICHARD LOOSEMORE=====>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?
ED PORTER=====> No mater how many years you have been studying something, if
your argumentative and intellectual approach is to dismiss evidence contrary
to your position on clearly false bases, as you did with you dismissal of my
evidence with your above quoted insult, a serious question is raised as to
whether you are worth listening to or conversing with.
ED PORTER
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed Porter wrote:
>
>
>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/?&;
-----
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=71802386-edd10b<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
