Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Just what do you want out of AGI? Something that thinks like a person or
something that does what you ask it to?
Either will do: your suggestion achieves neither.
If I ask your non-AGI the following
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When a computer processes a request like how many teaspoons in a cubic
parsec? it can extract the meaning of the question by a relatively
simple set of syntactic rules and question templates.
But when you ask it a question like how many
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When a computer processes a request like how many teaspoons in a cubic
parsec? it can extract the meaning of the question by a relatively
simple set of syntactic rules and question templates.
But when you ask it a question
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
If you have a better plan for AGI, please let me know.
I do. I did already.
You are welcome to ask questions about it at any time (see
http://susaro.com/publications).
Question: which of these papers
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
I did also look at http://susaro.com/archives/category/general but there
is no
design here either, just a list of unfounded assertions. Perhaps you can
explain why you believe point #6 in particular to
