The smattering of references to various researchers in the "Current Scope of the AGI Field," detracts from the work. Your comments about their eclectic works do not really add anything to the article. The references look like a rather out-of-touch attempt to make the article look scholarly or pretentiously encyclopedic. Most of us have added something to the field but will not recoup much in return and that goes for the published authorities that (it reads like) you have chosen to illustrate the conjectured contemporary paths as much as it goes for the rest of us.
I have been working on a novel way to represent 3-SAT problems and for the past few weeks I have been trying to see how it was in np but I just could not find it. Then this morning I woke up and started thinking...(uh...) By the afternoon I finally was able to show that my novel method of representing the problem produced a sequence of factors that had an unusual growth function which were worse than an exponential function. After doing some research on the Internet I found, "The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences." When I checked I did not find my sequence there. So as soon as I check the numbers and figure out a few formulas I am going to submit the sequence to the Encyclopedia. It is kind of fun and it is the first time I found anything that might have any use at all (even if it will only be interesting to a couple of guys who sometimes wish that they had a reason to carry miniature slide rules in the pockets.) The fact that I found this sequence while working on a representation of 3-SAT makes it more interesting than it might be otherwise. But it doesn't make me a pioneer or a future authority in the p=np field that is emerging in the second decade of 21st century. I spent a few hours looking at the sequence and I do not see anything there. I mean I may check out some cross-calculations but I do not expect anything - other than the sequence itself. So it is kind of interesting but not p=np, not AGI and it is only notable because the sequence should be noted by the specialists. Jim Bromer On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > No new concepts here, I just wanted there to be a standard reference for > the topic... > > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Artificial_General_Intelligence > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <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
