On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote:
> *** > The existing architecture has room for a lot of things, a lot of > freedom for designing things. I'd like to stick to it as much as > possible. > *** > > It's very understandable, however "... as possible" is key here, and > it's hard to see how the current system can scalably deal with tensors > from sensory processing tools, without some at least modest > changes/additions... > > Nothing I've heard so far requires any changes at all, and I can see a reasonable, simple solution, just fine. Of course, we might be talking about different things. But also - I've not seen enough detail here to force me to think deeply or hard about the problem - so perhaps I've over-simplified things in my head. -- Linas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA37hbSV%3DmUCMuSRWJHswt61g06n3cVtTEvShCG%2B-AHCDzw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
