Travis,
The AGI world seems to be cleanly divided into two groups:
1. People (like Ben) who feel as you do, and aren't at all interested or
willing to look at the really serious lapses in logic that underlie this
approach. Note that there is a similar belief in Buddhism, akin to the
prisoners
Fellow Cylons,
I sure hope SOMEONE is assembling a list from these responses, because this
is exactly the sort of stuff that I (or someone) would need to run a Reverse
Turing Test (RTT) competition.
Steve
---
agi
Archives:
Well, the existence of different contingencies is one reason I don't wont
the first one modeled after a brain. I would like it to be a bit simpler in
the sense that it only tries to answer questions from the most scientific
perspective as possible. To me it seems like there isn't someone stable
-Original Message-
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
How do you solve World Hunger? Does AGI have to. I think if it is truly
G it
has to. One way would be to find out what other people had written on the
subject and analyse the feasibility of their solutions.
why should AGIs give a damn about us?
I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way
of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that
precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is
important in the universe, its
Actually if you are serious about solving a political or social question
then what you really need is CRESS http://cress.soc.surrey.ac.uk/web/home.
The solution of World Hunger is BTW a political question not a technical
one. Hunger is largely due to bad governance in the Third World. How do you
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning: *
We prefer the hypothesis or explanation that ***expects* more observations.
If both explanations expect the same observations, then the simpler of the
two is preferred (because the unnecessary terms of the more complicated
