http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/technology/24think.html?
The name is a lot like Novamente. Interesting to see what
he comes up with.
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My prior comments on Hawkins' recent AI/vision-processing work are here:
www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/ 2004/ProbabilisticVisionProcessing.htm
I assume that what he's doing with Numenta is an extension of the work
discussed there,
Ben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.forbes.com/technology/personaltech/2005/03/24/cz_qh_0324numenta.html
Ben, this is good news, that someone with such
mainstream computer business credentials is getting into the AI business.
This can't but add legitimacy to the field, and if he makes any money at it many
will
sorry, there was a stray space in that link for some reason... use
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/ProbabilisticVisionProcessing.htm
My prior comments on Hawkins' recent AI/vision-processing work are here:
www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/ 2004/ProbabilisticVisionProcessing.htm
I assume
For example, a question to Ben - Novamente is designed to achieve
complex goals in complex environment but what goals in what
environments should it achieve before you can call it a 100% complete
AGI?
Well, it's clear that truly general intelligence is possible only under
conditions of
Well it seems more important to create some practical but imprecise
formula rather than a strict mathematical definition - offering as
much insight as a highly intelligent human is a good way to put it
and something which can be verified. However aren't we limiting
ourselves and making the task
From: Dmitri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how is the problem of defining intelligence handled by various
acclaimed authors? I only know about the Turing test but that's only
one possible way and one which is quite impractical.
I have a brief summary of the definitions, as I see them, in the Section
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:40:41 +0300, Dmitri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My personal opinion is that general intelligence is a lot more than
anything of the above but I cannot find a good criterion/definition of
AGI.
There is probably not one absolute definition. Humans themselves have
a
What I'd like to see are reasonably powerful theorems of the form:
In order to display general intelligence of level L according to definition
G, using computational resources R, a system must display structures S and
dynamics D.
I'll be content that a definition of general intelligence is
At 18:40 2005-03-24 Dmitri wrote:
My personal opinion is that general intelligence is a lot more than
anything of the above but I cannot find a good criterion/definition of
AGI.
Why do you need a definition?
Also, how is the problem of defining intelligence handled by various
acclaimed
Well it seems more important to create some practical but imprecise
formula rather than a strict mathematical definition - offering as
much insight as a highly intelligent human is a good way to put it
and something which can be verified. However aren't we limiting
ourselves and making the
Well, if someone has a goal of creating artifical intelligence, he has
to find a way to determine when the goal is achieved, otherwise
creating artificial intelligence is the same as creating something
I don't know what.
However to me it is more interesting not to find an single exact
definition
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:45:42PM -0500, Martin Striz wrote:
There is probably not one absolute definition. Humans themselves have
a repertoire of domain-specific cognitive adaptations coupled with a
limited ability at general problem solving, but we classify ourselves
as general
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:00:19AM +0300, Dmitri wrote:
Well, if someone has a goal of creating artifical intelligence, he has
to find a way to determine when the goal is achieved, otherwise
creating artificial intelligence is the same as creating something
I don't know what.
This has
14 matches
Mail list logo
