Now what I was reaching for at the beginning - was that all the talk of
developing bodies of knowledge in AI/AGI, that I'm seeing, seems to
belong to the "old days" of "separate committees." Mark's comment, for
example, seemed to me reasonably typical - essentially : "we can leave
testing till later - that's a separate department."
I think you may want to check with Mark on that one: you seemed to be
talking about different things. You: the system testing its expectations
in real time. Him: the idea of validating a knowledgebase offline. At
least, that is the way it looked on a cursory glance.
You're being bigoted again -- i.e.seeing what you expect to see instead of
what was there . . . .
Whenever you're tempted to say something disparaging like "reasonably
typical", maybe you should look again before making asinine comments.
I said absolutely nothing like "we can leave testing till later - that's a
separate department."
What I said was that since we didn't even have a grip on "how do you do it
(acquire knowledge and store it)" -- it was absolutely ludicrous to start
thinking about metrics of how to measure it -- since you have no idea what
you're going to be measuring.
I believe that I was also quite clear with my follow-on comment of "a cart
before the horse problem. Once we know how to acquire and store knowledge,
then we can develop metrics for testing it -- but, for now, it's too early
to go after the problem." as well.
I don't intend to answer you for a couple of days now. I'm tired of this
arrogant strawman crap.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
