Steve Richfield wrote
> In short, most people on this > list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI > (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear > to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any > apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, > where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. > > Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come > only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, > based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, > present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not > for technological reasons. ----------------------- Philosophers, biologists, cognitive scientists worked many many years to model the algorithms in the brain but only with success in some details. The overall model of human GI still does not exist. Should we really begin programming AGI only after fully understanding? High tech success does not need to fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. High tech products of today have most often a long way of past evolution. Rodney Brooks suspects, that this will also be the case with AGI. It is a process of trial and error. We build systems, evaluate their limits and build better systems and so on. Theoretical models are useful. But the more complex the problem is, the more important is experimental experience with the subject. And you can get this experience only from running programs. ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
