2008/5/27 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Will:And you are part of the problem insisting that an AGI should be tested
by its ability to learn on its own and not get instruction/help from
other agents be they human or other artificial intelligences.
I insist[ed] that an AGI should be tested on
2008/5/27 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
William,
This sounds like you should be announcing the analysis phase! Detailed
comments follow...
Design/research/analysis, call it what you will.
On 5/26/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VRRM - Virtual Reinforcement Resource
Steve: I have been advocating fixing the brain shorts that lead to problems,
rather than jerking the entire world around to make brain shorted people happy.
Which brain shorts? IMO the brain's capacity for shorts in one situation is
almost always a capacity for short-cuts in another - and
Steve/Stephen: I am planning to archive all conversations .This is pretty
simple with text, but when things move into real-time moving images from which
to understand the world, this takes a little more storage.
No one's yet actually trying to develop movie AI/AGI - an intelligence that
2008/5/28 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No one's yet actually trying to develop movie AI/AGI - an intelligence
that can live in and/or respond to a continuous movie[s] of the world, are
they? Ben's system, from the v. little I saw, gestures at this, but falls
short.
I'm doing stuff with
Bob: I'm doing stuff with robotics which is mostly about processing
sequences of images (I call the offline playbacks used for parameter
optimisation dream sequences), although probably what I'm doing
doesn't qualify as AGI in a strict sense - it's more reminiscent of
the Grand/Urban Challenge
2008/5/28 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sounds interesting. Can you give us a little more detail (or link). What
kind of robot, where? Doing what? Watching what movie? And how does it dream
- optimise/correct actions?
Link:
http://code.google.com/p/sentience/
A picture of the robot:
William,
On 5/27/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/5/27 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Systems now crash NOT because of the lack of some whiz-bang technology,
but
because architectural development has been in a state of arrested
development for the last ~35 years.
I'm not affiliated but I've found this interesting.
They seem to have 8 positions for PhD students:
http://www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/PhD/GK/
Their research program is really worth checking-out:
http://www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/PhD/GK/research/body.html
Fellow AGI-ers,
At the risk of being labeled the list's newsboy...
U.S. Plan for 'Thinking Machines' Repository
Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday May 28, @07:19PM
from the save-those-ideas-for-later dept.
An anonymous reader writes Information scientists organized by the U.S.'s
NIST say
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consciousness with minimal intelligence may be easier to build than
general
intelligence. General intelligence is the one that takes the resources.
A general consciousness algorithm, one that creates a consciousness in
any
environment may be simpler
--- J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an increasingly strong political incentive (between
countries) to create distributed indexes, but quite frankly the
technology does not exist. This was something I studied in earnest
when various governments started demanding such
12 matches
Mail list logo
