On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think so, if I understand you correctly, you're agreeing with me > that it's not feasible to go directly from S to a full von Neumann or > Turing machine; so you propose concentrating on S, and then building a > version of D that will be limited in the way we humans are, with the > idea that because humans are useful despite those limits, so will your > S-oriented AI be useful? >
Deliberative reasoning is not at the core of the system I'm thinking about, but for example given an external tape 'in the environment', such system can easily implement a finite state machine to drive a UTM. Like reasoning with pencil and paper. Individual actions that combine into trains of deliberative reasoning are reactive and can be learned incrementally. In the case of a program (AI), it will probably be possible to attach highly efficient *external* memory that will act as another modality and will be useful for deliberative reasoning. In perspective, such system can learn to use a computer and fashion new modalities for specific computational tasks. So, I don't see this as a strong limitation, but as a feature. -- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
