On Monday 26 May 2008 09:55:14 am, Mark Waser wrote:
Josh,
Thank you very much for the pointers (and replying so rapidly).
You're welcome -- but also lucky; I read/reply to this list a bit sporadically
in general.
You're very right that people misinterpret and over-extrapolate econ
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
Geez. What the heck is wrong with you people and your seriously bogus
stats?
Try a real recognized neutral tracking service like Netcraft
(http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html)
Does anyone believe that they are biased
This doesn't distinguish Apache on Windows like in WAMP vs. LAMP but that is
probably a small percentage.
Uhm I've noticed with C# is that you hit some performance and resource
issues when the app gets big. But that is the tradeoff I guess and it is
workaroundable. Also VS2008 is buggy. It's
And again, *thank you* for a great pointer!
- Original Message -
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity
Outcomes...]
On Monday 26 May 2008
Mark Waser:
Does anybody have any interest in and/or willingness to program in a
different environment?
I haven't decided to what extent I'll participate in OpenCog myself yet. For
me, it depends more on whether the capabilities of the system seem worth
exploring, which in turn depends as
This company attempts to survey web *servers* only
(Note: Total is about 5% of Netcraft total)
No. You are not correct. Read their methodology
(http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/faq.html?mondir=/200804domdir=domain=)
which I have copied and pasted below
We visit what we consider
On May 27, 2008, at 7:00 AM, BillK wrote:
As I understand it, Netcraft's results are based on web sites, or more
precisely, hostnames, rather than actual web servers. This introduces
a bias because some servers run a large number of low-volume (or zero
volume) web sites.
Of course, many
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
No. You are not correct. Read their methodology
(http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/faq.html?mondir=/200804domdir=domain=)
which I have copied and pasted below
We visit what we consider well-known sites. In our case, we define a
William,
This sounds like you should be announcing the analysis phase! Detailed
comments follow...
On 5/26/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VRRM - Virtual Reinforcement Resource Managing Machine
Overview
This is a virtual machine designed to allow non-catastrophic
Steve:Presuming that you do NOT want to store all of history and repeatedly
analyze all of it as your future AGI operates, you must accept MULTIPLE
potentially-useful paradigms, adding new ones and trashing old ones as more
information comes in. Our own very personal ideas of learning and
Hi Derek,
Thank you for the thoughtful response . . . .
There are a number of things that I'm very interested in within the OpenCog
umbrella (starting with a lot of the hypergraph stuff and the optimized indexes
that Ben has always been talking about but unwilling/unable to share)
2008/5/27 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually, that's an absurdity. The whole story of evolution tells us that
the problems of living in this world for any species of
creature/intelligence at any level can only be solved by a SOCIETY of
individuals. This whole dimension seems to be
Steve Richfield said:
A useful AGImust be able to rise above its own orders to be able to eliminate
problems rather than destroying them!
I agree that an AGI, to be friendly, must not blindly obey a human user. I
would rather have it act according to humanity's collective volition as
CAD/CAM programs (and many others) allow the fairly simple input of complex
objects like the car in your image and can then create an image of the
described object from any view and distance and have done so for years.
The problems are in object isolation (what your first URL dealt with) and
Will:And you are part of the problem insisting that an AGI should be tested
by its ability to learn on its own and not get instruction/help from
other agents be they human or other artificial intelligences.
I insist[ed] that an AGI should be tested on its ability to solve some
*problems* on its
Derek, you make an excellent point about the OpenCog project appearing too
open-ended and unfocused. Ben is writing documentation for a specific
cognitive architecture, OpenCog Prime, that is intended to address these
concerns. The first iteration of OpenCog Prime is targeted for July and will
be
Mark, your reception would be warmer if your behavior was less incessantly
abrasive and trollish.
I can accept abrasive (since I do get frustrated with bad science, etc.) but
believe that trollish is rather unfair . . . .
I think it's a good idea to work on a .NET implementation, and
With all this lovely chit-chat about .NET, I have been wondering if anyone
was entertaining the possibility of doing a port of NARS from Java to C#.
Not that I have seriously considered working myself on it, just that before
someone would undertake such an effort it would be beneficial to share
Stephen,
This is simply amazing! I thought that I made some key points, but I failed
to accurately communicate any of the ones that you commented on! Hmmm, I
wonder if the fault was in my posting, your reading of it, nearby erroneous
interpretations, or what? Perhaps someone else on this forum
Mike,
On 5/27/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve:Presuming that you do NOT want to store all of history and
repeatedly analyze all of it as your future AGI operates, you must accept
MULTIPLE potentially-useful paradigms, adding new ones and trashing old ones
as more information
Steve Richfield:
It is sure nice that this is a VIRTUAL forum, for if we were all
in one room together, my posting above would probably get
me thrashed by the true AGI believers here.
Does anyone here want to throw a virtual stone?
Sure.
*plonk*
21 matches
Mail list logo
