I am working on logical satisfiability again. If what I am working on right now works, it will become a pivotal moment in AGI, and what's more, the method that I am developing will (probably) become a core method for AGI. However, if the idea I am working on does not -itself- lead to a major breakthrough (which is the likelihood) then the idea will (probably) not become a core issue regardless of its significance to me right at this moment.
This is a personal statement but it is not just a question that can be resolved through personal perspective. So I have to rely on a more reasonable and balanced perspective that does not just assume that I will be successful without some hard evidence. Without the benefit of knowing what will happen with the theory at this time, I have to assume that there is no evidence that this is going to be a central approach which will in some manifestation be central to AGI in the future. I can see that as one possibility but this one view has to be integrated with other possibilities as well. I appreciate people's reports of what they are doing, and I would happily tell you what I am working on if I was more sure that it won't work or had it all figured out and I thought anyone would be interested (even if it didn't work.) Dave asked and answered, " How do we add and combine this complex behavior learning, explanation, recognition and understanding into our system? Answer: The way that such things are learned is by making observations, learning patterns and then connecting the patterns in a way that is consistent, explanatory and likely." That's not the answer. That is a statement of a subgoal some of which is programmable, but there is nothing in the statement that describes how it can be actually achieved and there is nothing in the statement which suggests that you have a mature insight into the nature of the problem. There is nothing in the statement that seems new to me, I presume that many of the programmers in the group have considered something similar at some time in the past. I am trying to avoid criticisms that get unnecessarily personal, but there are some criticisms of ideas that should be made from time to time, and some times a personal perspective is so tightly interwoven into the ideas that a statement of a subgoal can look like it is a solution to a difficult problem. But Mike was absolutely right about one thing. Constantly testing your ideas with experiments is important, and if I ever gain any traction in -anything- that I am doing, I will begin doing some AGI experiments again. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
