On 9/27/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 9/27/07, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I explain what is the best possible type of evidence for the complex
systems problem that we could ever expect to get (and I also give a
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 05:57:49PM -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Only as an upper bound.
Lower bound. The earliest AGI implementations are likely to be highly
inefficient. Faster algo's will be found only later, over time, as the
actual problem is understood better.
--linas
-
This list is
I am not saying the AGI problem is solved, or that it is a no-brainer,
but I think we are really beginning to understand the basic architecture of
powerful AGI's. Furthermore, I think it is clear that with Moore's law and
the fact that AI is one field that can very easily use the vast increase
On 28/09/2007, Don Detrich - PoolDraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it
interesting that some of you are so nervous about promoting your own
industry.
This is because in the history of the field there have been no
shortage of self-promoters who never really delivered on their
promises. It's
HOW TO CREATE THE BUZZ THAT BRINGS THE BUCKS
Wow, there it is. That just about says it all. Take the content of that
concise evaluation and go on the road. That is what AGI needs. For general
PR purposes it doesn't have to be much more detailed than that. Talk shows
and news articles are
Don Detrich writes:
AGI Will Be The Most Powerful Technology In Human History – In Fact, So
Powerful that it Threatens Us
Admittedly there are many possible dangers with future AGI technology. We can
think of a million horror stories and in all probability some of the problems
that will
--- Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 05:57:49PM -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Only as an upper bound.
Lower bound. The earliest AGI implementations are likely to be highly
inefficient. Faster algo's will be found only later, over time, as the
actual problem
About why it is difficult to create complex system that balances several
functions, as opposed to a system with just one single function (assuming
that the former would be important for AGI): To find a reason for this
difficulty, I would like to point in a different direction, namely at the
It looks more like chicken and the egg problem. There should be some
kind of internal tension to assert that culture restrains some kinds
of research methodologies: it might be that what we see in the field
is exactly what field wants to produce.
Mathematics tends to be detached from reality, and
HOW TO CREATE THE BUZZ THAT BRINGS THE BUCKS
Wow, there it is. That just about says it all. Take the content of that
concise evaluation and go on the road. That is what AGI needs. For general
PR purposes it doesnt have to be much more detailed than that. Talk shows
and news articles are
Derek,
This is how I responded to the below quoted comment from Don Detrich in
your email
Admittedly there are many possible dangers with future AGI technology. We
can think of a million horror stories and in all probability some of the
problems that will crop up are things we didnt
--- Robert Wensman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe there is hope if computer scientists tries to be a little bit less
like mathematicians, and dares to let in a little bit of the psychological
vagueness in their paper writing jargon. By that I do not mean to encourage
any kind of Freud-like
AGI system can be characterized by a way it's implementing certain cognitive
competencies. It might be difficult to grok particular design, but I think that
some of the following issues are central to viable AGI design and probably can
be outlined by short descriptions, which at least give a
I unsubscribed from the various Singularitarian mailing lists when I
grew out of believing computers are going to conquer the world, and
stayed on this one because I understood it to be for technical content
rather than religion; now I find it's being continually flooded with
the nerdocalypse
On 9/28/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not necessarily. In my work I measure intelligence to 9 significant digits.
Ok sure, by what unit are you measuring? :)
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
On 9/29/07, Mike Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok sure, by what unit are you measuring? :)
Bytes. He's talking about compression of a gigabyte text file. So I
agree he can measure to 9 significant digits, I just don't think what
he's measuring is intelligence :)
Though I retract my
16 matches
Mail list logo
