[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 3:28 pm, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 4. For someone on a practical mission to write an AI that makes sensible >> decisions, perhaps the model can serve as a starting point and as >> illustration of how far away we still are from that goal. > > Heh. Yes, very interesting indeed. But a huge body of knowledge and > a great deal of smartness is needed to even begin to grasp all that > stuff ;) > > As regards AI I gotta wonder whether that 'Decision Theory' stuff is > really 'the heart of the matter' - perhaps its the wrong level of > abstraction for the problem. That is it say, it would be great if the > AI could work out all the decision theory for itself, rather than > having us trying to program it in (and probably failing miserably). > Certainly, I'm sure as hell not smart enough to come up with a working > model of decisions. So, rather than trying to do the impossible, > better to search for a higher level of abstraction. Look for the > answers in communication theory/ontology, rather than decision > theory. Decision theory would be derivative of an effective ontology > - that saves me the bother of trying to work it out ;)
Decisions require some value structure. To get values from an ontology you'd have to get around the Naturalistic fallacy. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
