> I think the key fact is that most of these projects are currently
> relatively inactive --- plenty of passion out there, just not a
> lot of resources.
>
> The last I heard both the HAL project and the CAM-brain project
> where pretty much at a stand still due to lack of funding?
That is correc
Ben said
> I don't think significant engineering is going on in Pei's NARS project at
> the moment, either.
That is partially correct. I'm working on the conceptual design during the
"acadamic year", and some coding has been done in the (summer and winter)
vacations. Overall, NARS is not "on hold
I
invite others (in the bcc) to engage in this discussion at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NaturesPattern/
Laura
is the host and one can read a bit about her way of looking at things at the
home page given above.
Don
Mitchell has made a precise and defensible description of the profou
Ben,
I am
coming to understand that it is not a small matter of little importance, this
notion that a computer program can achieve anything that should properly be
called "intelligence". There is more than a philosophical difference here,
between you and I.
It is
a question also of w
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 19:19, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> James Rogers wrote:
> > In practice, the
> > exponent can be
> > sufficiently small (and much smaller than I think most people
> > believe) that
> > it becomes tractable for at least human-level AGI on silicon (my
> > estimate),
> > though it does
Paul,
Since you don't like interspersed text,
I'm going to try to respond to your interesting comments in a mostly
non-interspersed way...
1)
I'd love to see precise definitions of
what you mean by "intelligence" and "complexity."
When you make claims like "no computer
program can
James Rogers wrote:
> You would quite obviously be correct about the tractability if someone
> actually tried to brute force the entire algorithm space in L. The
> knowability factor means that we don't always (hardly ever?) get the
> best algorithm, but it learns and adapts very fast and this
>
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 19:24, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> James Rogers wrote:
> > You would quite obviously be correct about the tractability if someone
> > actually tried to brute force the entire algorithm space in L. The
> > knowability factor means that we don't always (hardly ever?) get the
> > best
