On Dec 28, 2007 1:55 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > > > ... considering the proliferation of AGI frameworks, it would appear > > that "any other" framework is pretty easy to build, no? ok, I'm being > > deliberately snarky - but if someone wrote about your own work the way > > you write about others, I imagine you would become increasingly > > defensive. > > You'll have to explain, because I am honestly puzzled as to what you > mean here.
I am not a published computer scientist. I recognize there are a lot of brains here working at a level beyond my experience. I was only pointing out that using language like "just as easy to build" to trivialize "your system" could be confrontational. It may not deliberately offend anyone, either because they are also not concerned about this nuance or they discount your attitude as a matter of course. I think with slightly different sentence constructions your ideas would be better received and sound less condescending. That's all I was saying on that. > I mean "framework" in a very particular sense (something that is a > "theory generator" but not by itself a theory, and which is complete > account of the domain of interest). As such, there are few if any > explicit frameworks in AI. Implicit ones, yes, but not explicit. I do > not mean "framework" in the very loose sense of "bunch of tools" or > "bunch of mechanisms". hmm... I never considered framework in that context. I thought framework referred to more of a scaffolding to enable work. As such, a scaffolding makes a specific kind of building. Though I can see how it can be general enough to apply the technique to multiple building designs. > As for the comment above: because of that problem I mentioned, I have > evolved a way to address it, and this approach means that I have to > devise a framework that allows an extremely wide variety of Ai systems > to be constructed within the framework (this was all explained in my > paper). As a result, the framework can encompass Ben's systems as > easily as any other. It could even encompass a system built on pure > mathematical logic, if need be. I believe I misunderstood your original statement. This clarification makes more sense. > Oh, nobody expects it to arise "automatically" - I just want the > system-building process to become more automated and less hand-crafted. Again, I agree this is a good goal - but isn't it akin to optimizing too early in a development process? Sure, there are well-known solutions to certain classes of problem. Building a sloppy implementation to those solutions is foolish when there are existing 'best practice' methods. Is there currently a best practice way to achieve AI? Let me preemptively agree that we should all continuously strive to implement better practices than we may currently be comfortable with - we should be doing that anyway. (how can we build self-improving systems if we are not examples of such ourselves) > > My guess is that any system that is generalized enough to apply across > > design paradigms will lack the granular details required for actual > > implementation. > On the contrary, that is why I have spent (am still spending) such an > incredible amount of effort on building the thing. It is entirely > possible to envision a cross-paradigm framework. With a different understanding of your use of "framework" I am less dubious of this position. > Give me about $10 million a year in funding for the next three years, > and I will deliver that system to your desk on January 1st 2011. Well, I'd love to have the cash on hand to prove you wrong. It would be a nice condition to have for both of us. > There is, though, the possibility that a lot of effort could be wasted > on yet another AI project that starts out with no clear idea of why it > thinks that its approach is any better than anything that has gone > before. Given the sheer amount of wasted effort expended over the last > fifty years, I would be pretty upset to see it happen yet again. Considering the amount of wasted effort in every other sector that I have experience with, I think you should keep your expectations low. Again, I would like to be wrong. ----- 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=80057282-a98eae
