Ben, Thanks, I think Mark is raising some interesting issues. I may not agree with him on all of them but it is good to have your ideas tested by intelligent questioning. Ed
-----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:37 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI? Ed -- Just a quick comment: Mark actually read a bunch of the proprietary, NDA-required Novamente documents and looked at some source code (3 years ago, so a lot of progress has happened since then). Richard didn't, so he doesn't have the same basis of knowledge to form detailed comments on NM, that Mark does. -- Ben On Nov 12, 2007 11:35 AM, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm sorry. I guess I did misunderstand you. If you have time I wish you could state the reasons why you find it lacking as efficiently as has Mark Waser. Ed Porter -----Original Message----- From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:20 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI? Edward W. Porter wrote: > Richard Loosemore wrote in a Sun 11/11/2007 11:09 PM post > > >>RICHARD####> You are right. I have only spent about 25 years working >>on > this > problem. Perhaps, no matter how bright I am, this is not enough to > understand Novamente's promise. > > ED####> There a many people who have spent 25 years working on AI who > have not spent the time to try to understand the multiple threads that > make up the Novamente approach. From the one paper I read from you, as > I remember it, your major approach to AI was based on a concept of > complexity in which it was hard-for-humans-to-understand the > relationship between the lower level of the system and the higher level > functions you presumably want it to have. This is very different than > the Novamente approach, which involves complexity, but not so much at an > architectural level, but rather at the level of what will emerge in the > self-organizing gen/comp network of patterns and behaviors that > architecture is designed to grow, all under the constant watchful eye -- > and selective weeding and watering -- of its goal and reward systems. > As I understand it, the complexity in Novamente is much more like that > in an economy in which semi-rational actors struggle to find and make a > niche at which they can make a living, than the somewhat more anarchical > complexity in the cellular automata Game Of Life. I am sorry, but this is a rather enormous misunderstanding of the claim I made. Too extensive for me to be able to deal with in a list post. > > So perhaps you are like most people who have spent a career in AI, in > that the deep learning you have obtained has not spend enough time > thinking about the pieces of Novamente-like approaches. But it is > almost certain that that 25 years worth of knowledge would make it much > easier for you to understand Novamente-like approach than all but a very > small percent of this planet/s people, if you really wanted to. > >> >ED####> I am sure you are smart enough to understand its promise if > you wanted to. Do you? > >>RICHARD####> I did want to. > > I did. > > I do. > > ED####> Great. If you really do, I would start reading the papers at > ___http://www.novamente.net/papers/_. Perhaps Ben could give you a > better reading list than I. > > I don't know about you, Richard, but given my mental limitations, I > often find I have to read some parts of paper 2 to 10 times to > understand them. Usually much is unsaid in most papers, even the well > written ones. You often have to spend time filling in the blanks and > trying to imagine how what its describing would actually work. Much of > my understanding of the Novamente approach not only comes from a broad > range of reading and attending lectures in AI, micro-electronic, and > brain science, but also a lot of thinking about what I have read and > heard from other, and about what I have observed over decades of my own > thought processes. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, Ed. I read all of the Novamente papers a couple of years ago. My own thinking had already gone to that point and (in my opinion) well beyond it. You are implying that perhaps I do not understand it well enough. I understand it, understand a very wide range of issues that surround it, and also understand what i see as some serious limitations (some of which are encapsulated in my complexity paper). Thanks for your concern, but understanding the Novamente approach is not my problem. ----- 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/? <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> & ----- 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/? <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> & _____ 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/? <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > & ----- 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=64228565-b1c7e0
