Responding to Edward W. Porter: Thanks for the excellent message! I am perhaps too interested in seeing what the best response from "the field of AGI" might be to intelligent critics, and probably think of too many conversations in those terms; I did not mean to attack or criticise your statements, just guess at objections that a skeptic might make. Much of what you wrote here could be used in such a response.> The truth is we really don’t know how big a good easy to computer representation of human level world knowledge would be. Right, or processing power to manipulate it. There are reasons to suspect it might be less than would be required for a molecular-level brain simulation. Intuitions about how much less will vary from individual to individual. > > 2. The software problem is solved. Ben Goertzel has solved it. I think > > most people will >> want more demonstration than a book review.> > I do too. Just to be clear, I'm not sure myself about whether Novamente has solved the software problem. It necessarily contains a large number of complex representational and implementation choices which I do not understand well enough to judge in an informed way. All I was trying to communicate is: prior to impressive demonstrations, nobody will believe that the software problem is solved. > AI buzz has not been steady for 50 years. Except in SciFi, it has largely > been missing in action for the last twenty years, since the overstated > promises of the expert systems boom of the mid-eighties fell flat. If "buzz" means academic respectability, government grant levels, and availibility of risk capital, you're certainly right! I'm not sure what makes any of those groups tick so I am not sure what sort of buzzers would be effective.
----- 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=8660244&id_secret=47484044-5944f6
