Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote: > > We just cannot do artificial intelligence in a provable manner. We > need chance, or luck. Even if we get some intelligent machine, we will > not know-it-for sure (perhaps just believe it correctly). But this is a quite weak statement, isn't it? It just prevents a mechanical way of making a AI, or making a provably friendly AI (like Eliezer Yudkowsky wants to do). We can prove very little about what we do or "know" anyway. We can't prove the validity of science, for example. It doesn't even mean that there is no developmental process that will allow us to create ever more powerful heuristics with which to find better AI faster in a quite predictable way (not predictable what kind of AI we build, just *that* we will build a powerful AI), right? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p31854285.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
