On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agreed with you up until your conclusion. While the problems that I > talked about may be known issues, they are discussed almost exclusively > using intuitive models, like we used, or by referring to ineffective models, > like network theories that do not explicitly show how its associative > interrelations would effectively deal with the intricate conceptual details > that would be required to address these issues and would be produced by an > effective solution. I have never seen any theory that was designed to > specifically address the range of situations that I am thinking of although > most earlier AI models were intended to deal similar issues and I have seen > some exemplary models that did use controlled models which showed how some > of these interrelations might be modeled. These intuitive discussions and > the exaggerated effectiveness of inadequate programs creates a concept cloud > itself, and the problem is that the knowledgeable listener has a feeling > that he understands the problem even without having made any kind of > commitment to the exploration of an effective solution. > > Although I have not detailed how the effects of the application of ideas > might be modeled in an actual AI program (or in an extremely simple model > that I would use to start studying the modeling) my whole point is that if > you are interested in advancing AI programming, then the issue that my > theory addresses is a problem that can not be dismissed with a wave of the > hand. The next step for me is to find a model that would be strong enough > to hold up to genuine extensible learning. > > If you are making a decision on how much time you should spend thinking > about this based only on whether or not you have thought about similar > problems I believe that you have already considered some sampling of the > kind of problems that my theory is meant to address. >
What you describe is essentially my own path up to this point: I started with considering high-level capabilities and gradually worked towards an implementation that seems to be able to exhibit these high-level capabilities. At the end of my last message I referred to a pragmatic problem. Substrate with which I now experiment is essentially a very simple recurrent network with seemingly insignificant tweaks. Without high-level view of how to make it exhibit high-level capabilities I'd never look at it twice. Convincing someone else that it is that capable will take a rather long description, and I can well turn out to be wrong (so people have a perfectly good reason not to listen). It seems more sensible to stick to prototyping and wait for more solid results, either changing the theory, or demonstrating its potential. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
