Yeah, it was fun to watch you stir them up, Ben. But they did
take you seriously in the discussions, for example when they
included your provocative quote in the plenary summary.
A lot of the systems had impressive behavior, but most were
dead end approaches, in my opinion, because they made
My talk is available at:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/FS104HibbardB.pdf
There was a really interesting talk by the neuroscientist
Richard Grainger with some publications available at:
http://www.brainengineering.com/publications.html
Cheers,
Bill
---
To unsubscribe, change your
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, deering wrote:
True intelligence must be aware of the widest possible context and derive super-goals based on direct observation of that context, and then generate subgoals for subcontexts. Anything with preprogrammed goals is limited intelligence.
You have pre-programmed
A lot of the systems had impressive behavior, but most were
dead end approaches, in my opinion, because they made logical
reasoning fundamental with learning as an add-on. The most
impressive talk from the main stream AI community was by Deb
Roy, who is achieving interesting
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Ben Goertzel wrote:
One idea proposed by Minsky at that conference is something I disagree with
pretty radically. He says that until we understand human-level
intelligence, we should make our theories of mind as complex as possible,
rather than simplifying them -- for fear of
Hi Brad,
Of course I understand that to get the academic community (or anyone else)
really excited about Novamente as an AGI system, we'll need splashy demos.
They will come in time, don't worry ;-) We have specifically chosen to
develop Novamente in accordance with a solid long-term
Now, I understand well that the human brain is a mess with a lot
of complexity, a lot of different parts doing diverse things.
However, what I think Minsky's architecture does is to explicitly
embed, in his AI design, a diversity of phenomena that are better
thought of as being emergent. My
Hi Brad,
really excited about Novamente as an AGI system, we'll need splashy demos.
They will come in time, don't worry ;-) We have specifically chosen to
Looking forward to it as ever :) I can understand your frustration with
this state of affairs. Getting people to buy into your
Hi,
Looking forward to it as ever :) I can understand your frustration with
this state of affairs. Getting people to buy into your theoretical
framework requires a major time investment on their part.
This is why my own works stays within the bounds of conventional
experimental and
I just had a somewhat funny experience with the traditional AI research
community
Moshe Looks and I gave a talk Friday at the AAAI Symposium on Achieving
Human-Level Intelligence Through Integrated Systems and Research. Our talk
was an overview of Novamente; if you're curious our
So much for getting work done today :)
I noticed at this conference that different researchers were using basic
words like knowledge and representation and learning and evolution
in very different ways -- which makes communication tricky!
Don't get me started on Working Memory.
In an AI context,
Hi YKY,
I agree that your algorithmic approach to AI is worth exploring, but I
think one serious problem is that when you use the combinator logic to
match various patterns, there is no gaurantee that the process will
converge.
I don't think mind is about guarantees! It's nondeterministic
I just got home and have no time to write long emails --- I type much slower
then Ben does. ;-)
I'm very glad to meet Ben again, and Bill and Moshe for the first time (as
well as some other people who are not in this list).
The Symposium description and schedule can be found at
One idea proposed by Minsky at that conference is something I disagree
with
pretty radically. He says that until we understand human-level
intelligence, we should make our theories of mind as complex as possible,
rather than simplifying them -- for fear of leaving something out! This
reminds me
On Oct 24, 2004, at 7:05 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
One idea proposed by Minsky at that conference is something I disagree
with
pretty radically. He says that until we understand human-level
intelligence, we should make our theories of mind as complex as
possible,
rather than simplifying them --
James, I have to say, this is very interesting, and unless I'm very
much mistaken, I'm not alone in flipping through my entry level
chemistry works looking bibliographic references to chemical
engineering references to beg/borrow/steal.
But before I run out and start reading, I want to ask your
Another point to this discussion is that the problems of AI and cognitive
science are unsolvable by a single person. 1 brain can't understand
itself, but perhaps 10,000 brains can understand or design 1 brain.
Therefore, these sciences depend on the interaction of communities of
scientists in
I think that, in approaching AI, one should try to find a theory that
accounts for all cognitive phenomena observed in humans (and potentially for
other cognitive phenomena not observed in humans, that one wants to see in
one's AI). However, I think that oftentimes a relatively compact *theory*
I don't want to spend too much time on this, so I'll sum up a few
things.
The major difference between computer science and chemical engineering
as a system model is that chemical engineering has no real axioms.
Consequently, you get some inconsistencies that have to be resolved
that don't
http://www.1729.com/consciousness/math-journal.html
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 24, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Brad Wyble wrote:
Another point to this discussion is that the problems of AI and
cognitive science are unsolvable by a single person. 1 brain can't
understand itself, but perhaps 10,000 brains can understand or design
1 brain.
This does not follow. You can build
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:14:46PM -0400, Brad Wyble wrote:
Another point to this discussion is that the problems of AI and cognitive
science are unsolvable by a single person. 1 brain can't understand
itself, but perhaps 10,000 brains can understand or design 1 brain.
Intelligence is not
22 matches
Mail list logo
