Vladimir,
On 4/11/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hence, simulational System Dynamics must be confined to systems whose
operation can be observed or instrumented. Unfortunately, this lets out
most
of the REALLY important real-world problems, especially medicine, from
On Friday 11 April 2008 03:17:21 pm, Steve Richfield wrote:
Steve: If you're saying that your system builds a model of its world of
discourse as a set of non-linear ODEs (which is what Systems Dynamics is
bout) then I (and presumably Richard) are much more likely to be
interested...
No
Steve:If you've
got a messy real-world problem, you know little, if you have an
algorithm giving the solution, you know all.
This is the bit where, like most, you skip over the nature of AGI - messy
real-world problems. What you're saying is: hey if you've got a messy problem,
it's great, nay
Jiri Jelinek wrote:
Richard,
Any public info about the user interface?
No, this is the part that will become public last of all.
Is it because the ideas keep evolving?
Or would it just reveal too much about your unique ideas = possibly
hurting your business if published in early stages of
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Reed
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] SAFAIRE project
Although not entirely applicable to every AGI project, here are my reasons
for using the GPL. I am also strongly in favor of open access for AGI/AI
academic
So . . . . are you willing to immediately release your current Dr. Eliza code
to Open Source and let us see it and help humanity together?
- Original Message -
From: Steve Richfield
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Comments from
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lukasz,
Thanks!
To me, your logical semantics and linguistic semantics correspond
to meaning of concepts and meaning of words, respectively, and the
latter is a subset of the former, as far as an individual is
Mark wrote:
I wonder if you could clarify why you insistupon GPL as opposed to a
Berkeley-type or Apache-type license? I believevery strongly that both
ends of the open source to commercial *spectrum*are entirely unreasonable
and that there is a reasonable middle ground wherewe
