YKY, what do you mean by "scruffie"? Is that anyone who doesn't think FOPL should be the core of an AGI?
About programming languages. I do most of my programming in C++ with a little bit of assembler. AGI needs some heavy duty number crunching. You really need assembler to do most any kind of vector processing, especially if you use a coprocessor like a graphics card or PS3 type hardware. You can get hundreds of GFlops for a few hundred dollars now, so why not use it? About business. Do you have any specific project goals? Something that might bring in money in the next 3-5 years? It is OK with me if our goal is to build something and give it away. A lot of people have made money that way. Look at Linux. I gave away my PAQ compressor and I've gotten 3 consulting jobs as a result, not counting work I turned down, and I never even looked for work. I just don't want to make the same mistake as Cyc and build something that nobody can use. I know AGI has lots of potential applications, but how are we going to show that our AGI is better than our competition? --- "YKY (Yan King Yin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi =) > > I already have a project going on.. but it's still in the planning stage. > The main difficulty is finding people who agree "in the main" about the > basic theory. > > About my project: > > 1. Has to be for-profit, but openness is good. Also it'd be quite different > from conventional companies in that the project is owned by all partners and > decisions are made by voting. > > 2. Knowledge representation is "basically" FOPL, perhaps with probabilities > / fuzziness. This rules out "scruffie" AI folks, sorry. Everyone knows > that intelligence entails a lot of things (eg vision), but I believe there > should be a "core" that is based on a uniform representation. Guess it's > better to skip the scruffie vs neat debate, and simply let people coalesce > to different projects. > > These 2 are the most important criteria. I tend to prefer partners with a > more theoretical slant, rather than churning out code at high speed. > > Some minor points: > > a) language -- unimportant. I think I'll use Lisp for initial development, > then switch to probably C# or Java. It's so difficult to find the right > minds that language should not be a cause of disagreement at all. The > entire project doesn't need to be in same language, but I also believe that > it would not be colossal in size. > > b) reflection -- source-level reflection is not needed for a basically > declarative AGI. Note that this doesn't mean my AGI would not be able > to program itself eventually. > > c) well-documented, sure. > > d) chat room: I say let's start a chat room for AGI in general. I > have started one on freenode.net, channel = #General-Intelligence (for some > reason the names #AGI and #GI were taken). > > e) I'd like to be able to say "everyone can do their own thing" but there > should be some structure that people can agree to, which I think is the KR. > > Cheers! > YKY > > ----- > 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/?&; -- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
