Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was no such evidence: Biosphere 2 had almsot nothing in the way of
complexity, compared with AGI systems, and it was controlled by trial and
error in such a way that it failed.
Hey,
For an article on an interesting project on embodied AGI read
Next Step In Robot Development Is Child's Play at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421162240.htm
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, ya dummy ;-) ... I wasn't criticising the Biosphere project itself!
Ah! Fair enough, I misunderstood you, then.
I was criticising your use of this as an example of how complexity can be
overcome in an engineered
Russell Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, ya dummy ;-) ... I wasn't criticising the Biosphere project itself!
Ah! Fair enough, I misunderstood you, then.
I was criticising your use of this as an example of how complexity can be
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are arguing past each other.
That was the impression I had, yes.
The reference you cite talks only about complicatedness --- as in, the
opposite of simplicity. In other words, the common usage of complexity.
Okay, well, take any nontrivial engineered system and you'll see
complexity being overcome by intuition plus trial and error. Here's a
couple of very good posts by someone who designs microwave electronics
for a living:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again. AI. No. Engineers do not work just by intuition or
intuition by trial and error. Please read your own link . . . .
I never said they worked by _just_ those things; but I suspect we may
simply have different
Russell Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are arguing past each other.
That was the impression I had, yes.
The reference you cite talks only about complicatedness --- as in, the
opposite of simplicity. In other words, the common
Guided trial and error, yes. Random, wishful thinking trial and error, no.
Trial and error is best treated like scientific hypotheses and experiments.
If you're rational about it, it is a stellar method. If you're just
flailing about at random, well . . . .
- Original Message -
Heh, didn't think I'd see Richard copying Eliezer's little pun from
that time. Ah well, can't say I didn't try.
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guided trial and error, yes. Random, wishful thinking trial and error, no.
Trial and error is best treated like scientific hypotheses and experiments.
If you're rational about it, it is a stellar method. If you're just
2008/4/28 J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I drool over the physical robot -- it's built like a brick outhouse. It has 53
degrees of freedom, binocular vision, touch, audition, and inertial sensors,
harmonic drives, top-grade aircraft aluminum members, the works.
That doofy face
Bob: I'm not totally convinced that having a high number of degrees of
freedom is actually necessary for the development of intelligence. Of
greater importance is the sensory capability, and the ways in which
that data is processed. A birds beak is a far less elaborate tool
than a human hand or
Josh,
Thanks for your link. I read the article. It is quite interesting. I got
some more info on the $9.7 million dollar RobotClub project below of which
iCub is the physical embodiment part.
Ed porter
==
An EU-funded project is to attempt to educate a
Incidentally this is also an open source robot.
http://eris.liralab.it/wiki/RobotCubSoftware
Mechanically sophisticated humanoids have a long history. What's
interesting about these is not how much money is spent or how many
axes are actuated but the sophistication of the software and
Thanks, what an interesting project. Purely on the mechanical side, it shows
how far away we are from truly flexible house-friendly robust mobile robotic
devices.
I'm a big fan of the robotic approach myself. I think it is quite likely that
dealing with the messy flood of dirty data coming
Bob,
I was aware the drum playing shown was pedantic from a robot standpoint,
nothing as sophisticated as the running and dancing Japanese robots.
But I agree the project is really quite ambitious in that it is trying to
create an embodied robot with a real AGI for a brain.
It may well make
17 matches
Mail list logo
