Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
Bill Hibbard wrote:
Eliezer,
I don't think it
inappropriate to cite a problem that is general to supervised learning
and reinforcement, when your proposal is to, in general, use supervised
learning and reinforcement. You can always appeal to a different
For a universal test of AI, I would of course suggest universal intelligenceas defined in this report:http://www.idsia.ch/idsiareport/IDSIA-10-06.pdf
ShaneOn Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:15:26 -500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:What is the universal test for the ability of any given AI SYSTEM
Hi,
I think/suspect that Hawkins' theory is that every (useful) concept, no matter
how abstract, is rooted in spatiotemporal pattern recognition, and that
therefor there is no real distinction between spatiotemporal pattern
recognition and cognition.
In his theory every concept is a
Mark Waser wrote:
My big issue is that the system depends on laborious experimentation to
find stable configurations of local parameters that will get all these
processes to happen at once.
the problem is doing that
whilst simultaneously getting the same mechanisms to handle 30 or 40
other
Mark Waser wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] How the Brain Represents Abstract Knowledge
You seem to be confusing Novamente with Richard Loosemore's system...
No, I don't think so . . . . I know that I know nothing about
If this doesn't seem to be the case, this is because of that some concepts are
so abstract that they don't seem to be tied to perception anymore. It is
obvious that they are (directly) tied to more concrete concepts (be
defined/described in terms of ...), but those concepts can also still be very
But of course, all I have so far is a written formalism that purports to
show how these many aspects of cognition can be explained within a
unified system (and fragmentary implementations that show that some of
the aspects do work),
That's a lot. Would you be willing to share any of it on a
HI,
Without common
interfaces, Novamente processes must have a common internal design and I
would content that this is a large disadvantage.
But, it is not the case that Novamente processes must have a common
internal design
Can I convince you that it is sufficient for a process to be
On 15/06/06, arnoud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 21:35, Ben Goertzel wrote:
If this doesn't seem to be the case, this is because of that some
concepts are so abstract that they don't seem to be tied to perception
anymore. It is obvious that they are (directly) tied to
