Let me be very clear about this. Of course a multi-disciplinary approach is helpful! And when AGI becomes a reality, that will be even more obvious. I am only able to follow what I am able to follow thanks to the contemporary philosophers who note it and contribute to it. All that I am saying is that this is not the central problem that still needs to be solved. More and more people with different interests are using computers and their use is more than an electronic filing cabinet.
And both pessimists and optimists will have aided in the study. The same thing goes for the discretionists and the weightednists. The rationalists and the intuitionists. The mystics and the supra-materialists. The hackers and the planners. The neural biologists and the ideationists. The dreamers and the pragmatists. But there is some other kind of problem. We should have figured it out by now. I believe that there must be some fundamental computational problem that is standing as the major obstacle to contemporary AGI. Without solving that problem we are going to have to wade through years of incremental advances. I believe that the most likely basis of the problem is efficient logical satisfiability. It makes the most senese given the nature of the computer and the nature of the best theories of mind. Jim Bromer On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Both of you are wrong. (Where did that quote come from by the way. What > year did he write or say that.) > > An inadequate understanding of the problems is exactly what has to > be expected by researchers (both professional and amateurs) when they are > facing a completely novel pursuit. That is why we have endless discussions > like these. What happened over and over again in AI research is that the > amazing advances in computer technology always seemed to suggest that > similar advances in AI must be just off the horizon. And the reality is > that there have been major advances in AI. In the 1970's a critic stated > that he wouldn't believe that AI was possible until a computer was able to > beat him in chess. Well, guess what happened and guess what conclusion he > did not derive from the experience. One of the problems with critics is > that they can be as far off as those whose optimism is absurdly unwarranted. > > If a broader multi-disciplinary effort was the obstacle to creating AGI, we > would have AGI by now. It should be clear to anyone who examines the > history of AI or the present day reach of computer programming that a > multi-discipline effort is not the key to creating effective AGI. Computers > have become pervasive in modern day life, and if it was just a matter of > getting people with different kinds of interests involved, it would have > been done by now. It is a little like saying that the key to safe deep sea > drilling is to rely on the expertise of companies that make billions and > billions of dollars and which stand to lose billions by mistakes. While > that should make sense, if you look a little more closely, you can see that > it doesn't quite work out that way in the real world. > > Jim Bromer > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> "One of the problems of AI researchers is that too often they start off >> with an inadequate >> understanding of the *problems* and believe that solutions are only a few >> years away. We need an educational system that not only teaches techniques >> and solutions, but also an understanding of problems and their difficulty — >> which can come from a broader multi-disciplinary education. That could speed >> up progress." >> A. Sloman >> >> (& who else keeps saying that?) >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
