> From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ah, but now you are stating the Standard Reply, and what you have to > understand is that the Standard Reply boils down to this: "We are so > smart that we will figure a way around this limitation, without having > to do any so crass as just copying the human design." >
Well another reply could be - OK everyone AGI is impossible so you can go home now. That would work real well. Into the future more and more bodies(and brains) will be thrown at this no matter what. Satellite technologies make it all more attractive and worthwhile and make it appear that progress is being made, and it is. If everything else is figured out and engineered and the last thing is a CSP that is still progress EVEN if some of the components need to be totally redesigned. Remember even basic stuff like say a primitive distributed graph software library is still in early stages of being built for AGI amongst many other things. There are protocols, standards, all kinds of stuff needed yet not there, especially experience. > The problem is that if you apply that logic to well-known cases of > complex systems, it amounts to nothing more than baseless, stubborn > optimism in the face of any intractable problem. It is this baseless > stubborn optimism that I am trying to bring to everyone's attention. > Sure. Yet how many resources are thrown at predicting the weather and it is usually still WRONG!! The utility of accurate prediction is so high even useless attempts have value due to spin-off technologies and incidentals and there is psychological value.. > In all my efforts to get this issue onto people's mental agenda, my goal > is to make them realize that they would NEVER say such a silly thing > about the vast majority of complex systems (nobody has any idea how to > build an analytical theory of the relationship between the patterns that > emerge in Game Of Life, for example, and that is one of the most trivial > examples of a complex system that I can think of!). But whereas most > mathematicians would refuse to waste any time at all trying to make a > global-to-local theory for complex systems in which there is really > vicious self-organisation at work, AI researchers blithely walk in and > say "We reckon we can just use our smarts and figure out some heuristics > to get around it". That's what makes engineers engineers. If it is not conquerable it is workaroundable. Still though I don't know how much proof that there is a CSP. The CB example you gave reminds me of a dynamical system. Proving the CSP exists may turn heads more. > I'm just trying to get people to do a reality check. > > Oh, and meanwhile (when I am not firing off occasional broadsides on > this list) I *am* working on a solution. > Yes, and your solution attempt is :) Please feel free to present ideas to the list for "constructive criticism" :) John ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
