On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 03:18:20PM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 11/3/07, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These are the result of very very direct reasoning, very low cpu usage > > (under 2 seconds, except for Lincoln, which had to weed out 20 things > > named "Lincoln County") and yet, its vaguely comparable to something > > that a 6-7-8-9-year-old might produce. > > > > Where is the developmental jump? At the pre-teen level? > > I think this is the perfect answer to your question about why natural > language is the wrong place to start. > > This isn't intended as personal criticism, but: look at what you just > said. You've started talking about IQ and implying a program is > vaguely comparable in intelligence to a 9 year old human... > > Based on a program that Google outperforms by several orders of magnitude. > > The problem with natural language is that the bandwidth is so tiny, it > necessarily relies primarily on the reader's imagination. We are > explicitly programmed, in other words, to assume intelligence on the > part of any entity that talks to us in semi-coherent English, and to > fill in all the gaps ourselves. There was intelligence at work in the > exchanges you quoted, yes, but the intelligence was in your brain, not > in the computer.
Touche! --linas ----- 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=61294072-1a9482
