On 10/21/06, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 5:25:13 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] SOTA
>For example, the human mind and some other AI techniques handle
>structured knowledge much better than NN does.
Is this because the brain is representing the knowledge differently than a
classical neural
network, or because the brain has a lot more memory and can afford to represent
structured knowledge inefficiently?
I believe it is mainly the former.
I agree with the conclusion of your paper that a classical neural network is
not sufficient to solve AGI. The brain is much more complex than that. But I
think a neural architecture or a hybrid system that includes neural networks of
some type is the right direction. For example, Novamente (if I understand
correctly, a weighted hypergraph) has some resemblance to a neural network
Well, in that sense NARS also has some resemblance to a neural
network, as well as many other AI systems.
To me, the problem is that the current NN technique is not rich and
powerful enough to support AGI design, though many ideas behind NN are
really necessary for AGI, as I argued in my paper --- I hope the paper
is not taken by people as a pure criticism to NN, since I also listed
its advantages over traditional symbolic AI.
Even if an AGI has some similarity with a NN, it is not necessarily a
hybrid system with a NN part (though I cannot exclude that
possibility), but may take some NN ideas without most of the details,
as in the case of NARS.
Pei
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
