Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
I wish you much luck with your own approach.... And, I would imagine
that if you create a software framework supporting your own approach
in a convenient way, my own currently favored AI approaches will not
be conveniently explorable within it. That's the nature of framework-building.
Actually, that would be a serious miusunderstanding of the framework and
development environment that I am building. Your system would be just
as easy to build as any other.
My purpose is to create a description language that allows us to talk
about different types of AGI system, and then construct design
variations autonmatically.
I don't believe it is possible to create a framework that both
a) is unbiased regarding design type
Nobody says "unbiased".
b) makes it easy to construct AGI designs
Then you have not been paying attention :-) (because I know for a fact
that I have said this to you in the past ....)
I am specifically targetting the problem of making it easier.
In my environment your Novamente system would be harder to implement
than a system that is better suited to my framework, BUT the point of
all the effort I am making is that your system would be (e.g.) ten times
easier to build than it is now, whereas my type of AGI design would be
(e.g.) a thousand times easier to build than it would be if I had to
hand craft it using the currently available tools. Either way, it would
be easier.
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=80022516-3d8694
