regarding how the brain is able
to learn in such an ambiguous world with so many variables that are
difficult to disambiguate, interpret and understand.
Dave
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I just came up with an awesome idea. I just realized that the brain
...@yahoo.com
--
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Mon, June 21, 2010 9:39:30 AM
*Subject:* [agi] Re: High Frame Rates Reduce Uncertainty
Ignoring Steve because we are simply going to have to agree to disagree...
And I don't see
are more likely to detect motion in objects
that
you recognize and expect to move, like people, animals, cars, etc.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Mon, June 21
Rob,
Real evolution had full freedom to evolve. Genetic algorithms usually don't.
If they did, the number of calculations it would have to make to really
simulate evolution on the scale that created us would be so astronomical, it
would not be possible. So, what matt said is absolutely correct.
I get the impression from this question that you think an AGI is some sort
of all-knowing, idealistic invention. It is sort of like asking if you
could ask the internet anything, what would you ask it?. Uhhh, lots of
stuff, like how do I get wine stains out of white carpet :). AGI's will not
be
I have to agree that a big problem with the field is a lack of understanding
of the problems and how they should be solved. I see too many people
pursuing solutions to poorly defined problems and without defining why the
solution solves the problem. I even see people pursuing solutions to the
Mike, I think your idealistic view of how AGI should be pursued does not
work in reality. What is your approach that fits all your criteria? I'm sure
that any such approach would be severely flawed as well.
Dave
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
realistic
still.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:22 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman
Mike, I think your idealistic view of how AGI should be pursued does not
work in reality. What is your approach
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
examples of it are
nice...
Eric Baum's whole book What Is thought is sort of an explanation of this
idea in a human biology and psychology and AI context ;)
ben
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based
lol.
Mike,
What I was trying to express by the word *expect* is NOT predict [some exact
outcome]. Expect means that the algorithm has a way of comparing
observations to what the algorithm considers to be consistent with an
explanation. This is something I struggled to solve for a long time
with a rule that eliminates the very potential of
possibilities as a *general* rule of intelligence) shows that you
don't fully understand the problem.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based
Mike,
you are mixing multiple issues. Just like my analogy of the rubix cube, full
AGI problems involve many problems at the same time. The problem I wrote
this email about was not about how to solve them all at the same time. It
was about how to solve one of those problems. After solving the
Mike,
Alive vs. dead? As I've said before, there is no actual difference. It is
not a qualitative difference that makes something alive or dead. It is a
quantitative difference. They are both controlled by physics. I don't mean
the nice clean physics rules that we approximate things with, I mean
Yeah. I forgot to mention that robots are not aalive yet could act
indistinguishably from what is alive. The concept of alive is likely
something that requires inductive type reasoning and generalization to
learn. Categorization, similarity analysis, etc could assist in making such
distinctions as
In case anyone missed it... Problems are not AGI. Solutions are. And AGI
is not the right adjective anyway. The correct word is general. In other
words, generally applicable to other problems. I repeat, Mike, you are *
wrong*. Did anyone miss that?
To recap, it has nothing to do with what problem
my
strategy to the alternatives.
Dave
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
That does not have to be the case. Yes, you need to know what problems you
might have in more complicated domains to avoid developing completely
useless theories on toy problems
. It is
great at certain narrow applications, but no where near where it needs to be
for AGI.
Dave
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Russell Wallace
russell.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
wrote:
Having experience with the full problem
, do not require
more info because that is where the experience comes from.
On Jun 28, 2010 8:52 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
David Jones wrote:
I also want to mention that I develop solutions to the toy problems with
the re...
A little research will show you the folly
If anyone has any knowledge of or references to the state of the art in
explanation-based reasoning, can you send me keywords or links? I've read
some through google, but I'm not really satisfied with anything I've found.
Thanks,
Dave
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones davidher
29, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
David Jones wrote:
If anyone has any knowledge of or references to the state of the art in
explanation-based reasoning, can you send me keywords or links?
The simplest explanation of the past is the best predictor of the future
the verbal/letter signals involved in NLP are.
What you need to do - what anyone in your situation with anything like your
asprations needs to do - is to hook up with a roboticist. Everyone here
should be doing that.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5
at 2:51 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
David Jones wrote:
I wish people understood this better.
For example, animals can be intelligent even though they lack language
because they can see. True, but an AGI with language skills is more useful
than one without.
And yes, I realize
the purpose of text is to convey something. It has to be interpreted. who
cares about predicting the next word if you can't interpret a single bit of
it.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
People do not predict the next words of text. We anticipate
. These examples don't really show
anything.
Dave
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
David Jones wrote:
I really don't think this is the right way to calculate simplicity.
I will give you an example, because examples are more convincing than
proofs
applicable to general vision?
Get thee to a roboticist, make contact with the real world.
Get yourself to a psychologist so that they can show you how flawed your
reasoning is. Fallacy upon fallacy. You are not in touch with reality.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Tuesday
Scratch my statement about it being useless :) It's useful, but no where
near sufficient for AGI like understanding.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:58 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
notice how you said *context* of the conversation. The context is the real
world, and is completely
narrow AI is a term that describes the solution to a problem, not the
problem. It is a solution with a narrow scope. General AI on the other hand
should have a much larger scope than narrow ai and be able to handle
unforseen circumstances.
What I don't think you realize is that open sets can be
Nice Occam's Razor argument. I understood it simply because I knew there are
always an infinite number of possible explanations for every observation
that are more complicated than the simplest explanation. So, without a
reason to choose one of those other interpretations, then why choose it? You
less general solutions for
multiple problem types and environments. The best way to do this is to
choose representative case studies to solve and make sure the solutions are
truth-tropic and justified for the environments they are to be applied.
Dave
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones
puddle in the middle of the desert :).
Dave
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I've learned something really interesting today. I realized that general
rules of inference probably don't really exists. There is no such thing as
complete generality
visual processing
algorithm. Learning algorithms suffer similar environment-dependence, but
(by their nature) not as severe...
--Abram
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I've learned something really interesting today. I realized that general
rules
a specified portion of video given a different portion. Do
you object to this approach?
--Abram
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
It may not be possible to create a learning algorithm that can learn how
to generally process images and other general AGI problems
Mike,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Isn't the first problem simply to differentiate the objects in a scene?
Well, that is part of the movement problem. If you say something moved, you
are also saying that the objects in the two or more video
the
world will be like. They aren't able to learn about any world. They are
optimized to configure their brains for this world.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 1:56 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
as a more primary sense, well before it got to vision.
*Or perhaps it may prove better to start with robot snakes/bodies or
somesuch.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 3:22 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress
Although I haven't studied Solomonoff induction yet, although I plan to read
up on it, I've realized that people seem to be making the same mistake I
was. People are trying to find one silver bullet method of induction or
learning that works for everything. I've begun to realize that its OK if
a single silver bullet, the more we will just break against the fact that
none exists.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I haven't studied Solomonoff induction yet, although I plan to
read up on it, I've realized that people seem to be making
certainly didn't have one.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 4:20 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Mike,
Please outline your algorithm for fluid schemas though. It will be clear
when you do
Mike,
Using the image itself as a template to match is possible. In fact it has
been done before. But it suffers from several problems that would also need
solving.
1) Images are 2D. I assume you are also referring to 2D outlines. Real
objects are 3D. So, you're going to have to infer the shape
I accidentally pressed something and it sent it early... this is a finished
version:
Mike,
Using the image itself as a template to match is possible. In fact it has
been done before. But it suffers from several problems that would also need
solving.
1) Images are 2D. I assume you are also
* in theory
absolute setform=freeform nonsense, you will in practice always, always
stick to setform objects. Some part of you knows the v.obvious truth ).
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, July 10, 2010 3:51 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Re
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Dave:You can't solve the problems with your approach either
This is based on knowledge of what examples? Zero?
It is based on the fact that you have refused to show how you deal with
uncertainty. You haven't even
Thanks Abram,
I know that probability is one approach. But there are many problems with
using it in actual implementations. I know a lot of people will be angered
by that statement and retort with all the successes that they have had using
probability. But, the truth is that you can solve the
Abram,
Thanks for the clarification Abram. I don't have a single way to deal with
uncertainty. I try not to decide on a method ahead of time because what I
really want to do is analyze the problems and find a solution. But, at the
same time. I have looked at the probabilistic approaches and they
Mike, you are so full of it. There is a big difference between *can* and
*don't*. You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say that
can't.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't*
Mike,
see below.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts -
if you think they do, you must give examples.
The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is
a) concepts encase a
It includes a (short-ish?) section comparing the pros/cons of MDL and
Bayesianism, and examining some of the mathematical linkings between them--
with the aim of showing that MDL is a broader principle. I disagree there,
of course. :)
--Abram
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Jones davidher
I've been trying to figure out how to score hypotheses. Do you guys have any
constructive ideas about how to define the way you score hypotheses like
these a little better? I'll define the problem below in detail. I know Abram
mentioned MDL, which I'm about to look into. Does that even apply to
with specified kinds of actions and objects - they cannot
deal with unspecified kinds of actions and objects, period. You won't
produce any actual examples to the contrary.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:00 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject
What do you mean by definitive events?
I guess the first problem I see with my approach is that the movement of the
window is also a hypothesis. I need to analyze it in more detail and see how
the tree of hypotheses affects the hypotheses regarding the es on the
windows.
What I believe is that
of hypotheses, conflicts and unexpected
observations until we find a good hypothesis. Something like that. I'm
attempting to construct an algorithm for doing this as I analyze specific
problems.
Dave
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean
(although not as simple as black squares :)
) and work my way up again.
Dave
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I just realized that there is a way to included inductive
knowledge and experience into this algorithm. Inductive knowledge
) of the description of the hypothesis. The value is language dependent,
so this method is not perfect.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
--
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Thu, July 15, 2010 10:22:44 AM
*Subject:* Re
, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
What do you mean by definitive events?
I was just trying to find a way to designate obsverations that would be
reliably obvious to a computer program. This has something to do with the
assumptions that you are using
in
a body becomes.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:54 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] How do we Score Hypotheses?
Jim,
even that isn't an obvious event. You don't know what is background and
what is not. You don't even know
This is actually a great example of why we should not try to write AGI as
something able to solve any possible problem generally. We, strong ai
agents, are not able to understand this sentence without quite a lot more
information. Likewise, we shouldn't expect a general AI to try many
likely to for a v. v. long time.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 4:35 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] NL parsing
This is actually a great example of why we should not try to write AGI as
something able to solve any possible
not really.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:41 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can
work towards. ?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/7/18 deepakjnath
If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't
think a test is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented
much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is
AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how
Deepak,
I think you would be much better off focusing on something more practical.
Understanding a movie and all the myriad things going on, their
significance, etc... that's AI complete. There is no way you are going to
get there without a hell of a lot of steps in between. So, you might as well
Ian,
Although most people see natural language as one of the most important parts
of AGI, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize that solving natural
language could be done with sufficient knowledge of the world and sufficient
ability to learn this knowledge automatically. That's why i
knowledge to say that one hypothesis is better than another in
the vast majority of cases. The AI doesn't have sufficient *reason* to think
that the right hypothesis is better than others. The only way to give it
that sufficient reason is to give it sufficient knowledge.
Dave
2010/7/18 David Jones
Training data is not available in many real problems. I don't think training
data should be used as the main learning mechanism. It likely won't solve
any of the problems.
On Jul 21, 2010 2:52 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC.
An Update
I think the following gets to the heart of general AI and what it takes to
achieve it. It also provides us with evidence as to why general AI is so
difficult. With this new knowledge in mind, I think I will be much more
capable now of solving the problems and making it work.
I've
Because simpler is not better if it is less predictive.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim,
Why more predictive *and then* simpler?
--Abram
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
An Update
I think
simpler when it
is smaller, then you can do the same thing without a program. I don't think
it makes any sense to do it this way.
It is not that simple. If it was, we could solve a large portion of agi
easily.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
David Jones
lol. thanks Jim :)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say that I am proud of David Jone's efforts. He has really
matured during these last few months. I'm kidding but I really do respect
the fact that he is actively experimenting. I want to
of for measuring the
predictiveness? I can think of a few different possibilities (such as
measuring number incorrect vs measuring fraction incorrect, et cetera) but
I'm wondering which variations you consider significant/troublesome/etc.
--Abram
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, David Jones
, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
It's certainly not as simple as you claim. First, assigning a probability
is not always possible, nor is it easy. The factors in calculating that
probability are unknown and are not the same for every instance. Since we do
not know what combination
Matt,
Any method must deal with similar, if not the same, ambiguities. You need to
show how neural nets solve this problem or how they solve agi goals while
completely skipping the problem. Until then, it is not a successful method.
Dave
On Jul 24, 2010 7:18 PM, Matt Mahoney
Check this out!
The title Space and time, not surface features, guide object persistence
says it all.
http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/14/6/1199.full.pdf
Over just the last couple days I have begun to realize that they are so
right. My idea before of using high frame rates is also
that the brain uses hierarchical features LOL
Dave
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:52 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Check this out!
The title Space and time, not surface features, guide object persistence
says it all.
http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/14/6/1199.full.pdf
Over
Yes. I think I may have discovered the keys to crack this puzzle wide open.
The brain seems to use simplistic heuristics for depth perception and
surface bounding. Once it has that, it can apply the spaciotemporal
heuristic I mentioned in other emails to identify and track an object, which
allows
clues in to how the
brain compresses and uses the relevant information while neglecting the
irrelevant information. But as Anast has demonstrated, the brain does need
priming inorder to decide what is relevant and irrelevant. :)
Cheers,
Deepak
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, David Jones
Sure. Thanks Arthur.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:42 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Arthur,
Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get
bored of maintaining
Deepak,
I have some insight on this question. There was a study regarding change
blindness. One of the study's famous experiments was having a person ask for
directions on a college campus. Then in the middle of this, a door would
pass between the person asking directions and the student giving
:) Intelligence isn't limited to higher cognitive functions. One could say
a virus is intelligent or alive because it can replicate itself.
Intelligence is not just one function or ability, it can be many different
things. But mostly, for us, it comes down to what the system can accomplish
for
How about you go to war yourself or send your children. I'd rather send a
robot. It's safer for both the soldier and the people on the ground because
you don't have to shoot first, ask questions later.
And you're right, we shouldn't monitor anyone. We should just allow
terrorists to talk openly
Abram Wrote:
I take this as evidence that there is a very strong mental landscape...
if you go in a particular direction there is a natural series of landmarks,
including both great ideas and pitfalls that everyone runs into. (Different
people take different amounts of time to climb out of
into them.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
I've suddenly realized that computer vision of real images is very much
solvable and that it is now just a matter of engineering
shifts from absolute values to rates of change.
Steve
===
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:52 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I've suddenly realized that computer vision of real images is very much
solvable and that it is now just a matter of engineering. I was so stuck
, but it fits
the neat definition better than it meets the scruffy definition. Scruffy
has more to do with people-programmed ad hoc approaches (like most of AGI),
which I agree are a waste of time.
Steve
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
Steve,
I
steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote:
David
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:16 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
3) requires manually created training data, which is a major problem.
Where did this come from. Certainly, people are ill equipped to create
dP/dt type data. These would have to come
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Steve Richfield
steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote:
David,
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:45 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Understanding what you are trying to accomplish and how you want the
system to work comes first, not math.
It's all the same
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
*So, why computer vision? Why can't we just enter knowledge manually?
*
a) The knowledge we require for AI to do what we want is vast and complex
Hey Ben,
Faster, cheaper, and more robust 3D modeling for the movie industry. The
modeling allows different sources of video content to be extracted from
scenes, manipulated and mixed with others.
The movie industry has the money and motivation to extract data from images.
Making it easier, more
PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Guys,
I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to
share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft
of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in
progress
Mike,
I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to
make sure these problems are addressed.
See more comments below.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make
. He/It is a
freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the
box/brick/fundamental unit.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
I took your comments
.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat
previous arguments to you.
You have no proof that the world cannot
and through.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat
previous arguments to you.
You
You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it
must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be
physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose
unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no
such
I already stated these. read previous emails.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual
AGI.?
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
useful for another task.
The idea that chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes,
sizes and structures is just wrong.
Dave
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Examples of nonphysical patterns?
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
- and must embrace many
diverse forms that strings may be shaped into.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 2:13 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
Quoting a previous email:
QUOTE
In fact
percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like
AGI I.e. I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition
bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial
percentage...
-- Ben G
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher
Ben,
Comments below.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be
proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit
the same visual limitations in the same way.
I've decided to go. I was wondering if anyone else here is.
Dave
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
Way too pessimistic in my opinion.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote:
Aww, so cute.
I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
collecting personal
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
