In the spirit of Pei Wang's paper, perhaps inspired by it...
I've written one page available at:
http://www.footnotestrongai.com/articles/agifocus.html
The points discussed -
1. why we can't agree on a way to calculate an I or intelligence
rating number
2. suggestion that while we can't
Richard,
Thanks for the detailed comments!
If you spend some time in my semantic theory, you will see that I
never believe any concept can get any kind of objective meaning or
true definition. All meanings depend on an observer, with its
observation ability and limitation. The so called
Will,
The situation you mentioned is possible, but I'd assume, given the
similar functions from percepts to states, there must also be similar
functions from states to actions, that is,
AC = GC(SC), AH = GH(SH), GC ≈ GH
Consequently, it becomes a special case of my Principle-AI, with a
Something I noticed while trying to fit my definition of AI into the
categories given.
There is another way that definitions can be principled.
This similarity would not be on the function of percepts to action.
Instead it would require a similarity on the function of percepts to
internal state
On 14/01/2008, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will,
The situation you mentioned is possible, but I'd assume, given the
similar functions from percepts to states, there must also be similar
functions from states to actions, that is,
AC = GC(SC), AH = GH(SH), GC ≈ GH
Pei,
Sorry I
2008/1/14 William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would define the similarity of the
functions that it is possible to be interested in as.
St = F(S(t-1),P)
That is the current state is important to what change is made to the
state. For example a man coming across the percept Oui, bien sieur,
