On 3/24/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/25/07, rooftop8000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > I think Jey's comment is reasonable. It seems impractical to start a
> > collaborative AI project without having an AGI design which specifies
what
> > modules are there and how they communicate.
>
> I hoped someone on the list was smart enough to find one
I have actually proposed such an architecture, in outline. I'm sure Ben G
and Peter Voss also have their respective architectures. One question is
whether we can synthesize these different theories. If not, we'd end
up with a number of isolated groups that do not collaborate in any
meaningful / significant way.
That might be bad from your perspective, but I think it could be good
from a global perspective. For one thing, each group will have its own
approach and one will cross the finish line earlier than the others.
Since you can't objectively predict which approach that will be, the
diversity is valuable. Also, the groups may learn from each other or
improve their performance in response to the accomplishment of other
groups.
The fragmentation of ordinary software development can be frustrating.
There is Java vs. .NET vs. C++ vs. open source (which isn't really
entirely separate from the others). But I'm positive none of these
would have progressed as far without the competition. Hell, Java 5.0
was *all* about responding to .NET which in turn was very much about
responding to the Java phenomena. And we reap the rewards: there is
more benefit than harm.
You have a lot of passion for forming a group. I think you shouldn't
worry so much about recruiting Novamente and AdaptiveAI and just form
your own. Your collaborators are going to be people like "rooftop" who
aren't already in a close knit group. They are not going to be folks
who have already devised a well thought out approach/design and are
well into coding. Forget it.
And in a sense, Ben is practically a collaborator with everybody due
to his willingness to share so many thoughts and insights. (And for
that, we thank you.)
Peter... I wish you weren't so secretive... ;-)
Although there is some nice starter material here:
http://adaptiveai.com/research/index.htm
Some form of unifying "framework", whatever that is, is of course
desirable. But the problem is how to get people to *agree* to work within
your framework (or any particular one). In fact, a whole bunch of people on
this list may claim to have some unifying framework for everyone else to
work in.
Let the competition between groups for recruitment and demonstrable
results begin!
Simply voting on individual features cannot work because all the features of
an AGI are inter-related; they have to work together synergistically.
A committee approach to architecture has historically failed
repeatedly, especially where breaking new ground is concerned. Someone
needs to be the leader/visionary. Usually the one that forms the
group...
I'd make a bronze statue of anyone who can solve this problem!!
Can I get a million dollars instead? :-)
-Chuck
-----
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
