Richard Loosemore:> So, for example, if I were organizing a conference on AGI I would want > people to address such questions as: I find your list of questions to be quite fascinating, and I'd love to participate in an active list or conference devoted to these "Foundations of Cognitive Computing" type of issues. However, it doesn't particularly bother me that people are building systems without explicit answers to these things, because I find the systems themselves, and the ideas about AI that they embody, to be very cool on their own terms. I am not competing with any of them for money or fame, I am hopeful that lessons will be learned no matter how right or wrong their approaches end up, I think we're decades away from AGI systems that are intelligent enough to have a real impact on our society (a more useful phrase that than "human level" IMO) so I'm not mad that wasted effort is delaying a cure for hunger and disease. People do not accept critiques that cast their entire professional output as worthless and their most basic premises as fatally flawed... if a point can be made in an understandable way from the assumed world view of somebody else, I do think it's worth making, but it's somewhat rare to be able to do so on material with which I have only a casual familiarity. The deep questions that interest you (and me and, to an extent i believe, everybody on this list) are troublesome because they are so hard to talk about. Consider your complex systems argument. There appears to be some basic point-of-view differences that make communication on these topics difficult. It's not all pigheadedness or ill will, I don't think. Or (picking one of your questions at random): > - What assumptions do we have to buy into if we go with bayesian nets > as a > choice of reasoning/representation formalism? And how would we go > about > finding out if those assumptions are valid enough to make it safe > to use > bayes nets? I'm not sure how to even begin a conversation about such a question. First we have to decide what a reasoning/representation formalism has to do, and I'm afraid everybody has a different set of premises on points like that. Those debates would be highly worthwhile, but I doubt many people will bother with them.
------------------------------------------- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
