in terms of the survey looks pretty good. there is a typo or something in section 2.1 "but bugiven our current limited understanding of general intelligence" should be "but given our current limited understanding of general intelligence"
Based on the categories, I guess my AGI approach (HSPL) would be currently symbolic, with plans to be a hybrid system(GI-OS). Though I see it as somewhat different from some approaches as it is also a programming language, its not really far enough along to be of note. Until I integrate the memory subsystem it wont really be of much use for large programs, perhaps I will take some inspiration out of the diagrams you presented in making your article. Shall probably be ready to begin the implementation within a month or so. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > I just skimmed though it, so excuse me if my comments is a moot point > etc... > > I have a book called "Computers and Common Sense" by Mortimer Taube > (the name alone is entertaining). Subtitle "The Myth of the Thinking > Machine." c) 1961. I read it at one point and have forgotten most of > it, but the point is that some of these early books made a great fuss > about somethings that are now presently possible to some extent, like > language translation is treated in it, with some (now) entertaining > conjectures about how difficult it would be. > > The point here being that it might be interesting to include some of > these early anti-AI books. > > Mike A > > On 2/12/13, Russell Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > > Starting with this one: > > > >> http://goertzel.org/AGI_History_early_draft.pdf > > > >> These practical and conceptual achievements paved the way for the > >> pioneering work of Charles Babbage > > and Ada Lovelace in the 1800s, as they designed and sought to build a > > fully programmable arithmetic > > calculator. Had they succeeded, it would have been the first artificial > > computer truly worthy of the name. > > Unfortunately they never quite got their ”Analytical Engine” working, > > due to practical difficulties related to > > irregularly shaped parts and so forth. In hindsight the workability of > > their ideas seems almost obvious, but > > at the time their pursuit was judged insane by most contemporaries > > > > This is perhaps a little misleading - while Babbage's ideas were > > controversial, they were taken seriously enough for him to receive > > substantial funding from the British government. (It has been reckoned > > that the improvements in precision manufacturing developed in the > > process of trying to get the analytical engine to work, more than > > repaid the investment.) > > > >> – its a perspective that was created > > > > should be "it's" > > > >> . Chomsky’s classic work Syntactic Structures appeared in 1957, > presenting > >> an incisive > > analysis of natural language syntax in terms of mathematical formal > > grammars – in essence building a bridge > > between natural human languages and programming languages, and laying > > the conceptual foundations for > > computational linguistics as well as modern theoretical linguistics. > > > > May be worth clarifying that Chomsky's work was intended to capture > > natural language, ended up only partly doing this, not enough for even > > narrow AI purposes, but turned out unexpectedly to be highly useful > > for programming languages? > > > > The discussion of symbolic versus connectionist and genetic > > programming approaches should perhaps mention the terms 'neat' and > > 'scruffy'? > > > >> based on > > analogy to the humanmind > > > > should be "human mind" > > > >> The CM5 massively parallel AI computer > > > > While AI was the personal motivation for Hillis, there was nothing in > > the CM hardware designs that particularly suited them for AI work - > > indeed I would argue that on the contrary, such oddball and > > restrictive designs are particularly _un_suited for AI work - maybe > > just call it a massively parallel computer? > > > > Overall, I like it. There's a tradeoff between comprehensiveness and > > brevity, and also between presenting disjointed facts with no pattern > > versus going overboard in imposing the author's own views. I think > > you've done an unusually good job here in balancing both of those. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
