On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I saw absolutely nothing that makes me believe that a field called > "Artificial General Intelligence" even exists yet. To the extent that there > were any proposals concerning complete architectures, those proposals were > completely arbitrary, in the sense that they were plucked out of thin air > with no reasons given to indicate that they would be any different to > similar proposals plucked in like fashion 20 years ago. > > People do not even have a common LANGUAGE within which they could discuss > the question of whether these papers are arbitrary pet projects of their > creators, or something deeper. Does anyone here understanding what I mean > by that? >
It has to start somewhere. Increasing awareness of the problem and rebranding the research direction is a good thing in itself. Even if not accompanied by noticeably increased understanding initially, it will lead to more people trying to work out AGI, which hopefully will advance the field, even if by "non-mainstream-AGI" leaps... -- 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
