--- Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > rooftop8000 wrote: > > Hi, I've been thinking for a bit about how a big collaboration AI project > > could work. I browsed the archives and i see you guys have similar > > ideas.... > > > > I'd love to see someone build a system that is capable of adding any > > kind of AI algorithm/idea to. It should unite the power of all existing > > different flavors: neural nets, logical systems, etc > > The Novamente core system actually does fits this description, but > > 1) > the API is in some places inelegant, though we have specific > plans for improving it > > 2) > it's C++, which some folks don't like > > 3) > it currently only runs on Unix systems, though a Windows port > will likely be made during the next month, as it happens > > 4) > it is proprietary > > > If there would be use for such a thing, I would consider open-sourcing > the Novamente core system, separate from the specific learning modules > we have created to go with it. I would only do so after the inelegancies > mentioned above (point 1) are resolved though.
what kind of things does it contain that will facilitate a big collaboration? (because you only list the negative points) > > My own view these days is that a wild combination of agents is > probably not the right approach, in terms of building AGI. > > Novamente consists of a set of agents that have been very carefully > sculpted to work together in such a way as to (when fully implemented > and tuned) give rise to the right overall emergent structures. > > The Webmind system I was involved with in the late 90's was more > of a heterogeneous agents architecture, but through that experience > I became convinced that such an approach, while workable in principle, > has too much potential to lead to massive-dimensional parameter- > tuning nightmares... not if you let everyone take care of their own piece of code. i think it is unavoidable to have a large degree of heterogeneity in the system (modules), if you want it to handle a wide range of problems. > > This gets into my biggest dispute w/Minsky (and Push Singh): they > really think intelligence is just about hooking together a sufficiently > powerful community of agents/critics/resources whatever, whereas > I think it's about hooking together a community of learning algorithms > that is specifically configured to give rise to the right emergent > structures/dynamics. I agree. picking a small subset of algorithms gives you an easier and prettier system. But you can never make sure you have the right ones. Combining a lot of imperfect ones is just more likely to give a more powerful system. I'd love to hear more about what the Novamente core system can offer bye ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 ----- 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/?list_id=303
