> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
>
>
> There are some complications of the experience of our existence, and those
> complications may be explained by the complex processes of mind.
> Since we can think we can think about the experience of life and interweave
> the strands
If you want to talk about user experience then do so (as you just
did.) Do not conflate human experience with programming constructs and
then find a tangential argument to justify it.
Jim Bromer
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Bromer v
I think, Last Mile Engineering, is everything...even for AI. Principles for the
survival of technology have not changed over the past 5 decades. For mankind,
the user interface is the only protocol. As translators, we need to bear in
mind that chasing the AGI dragon won't exclude our results fro
I am not talking about growing knowledge from a domain base. I am
talking about growing knowledge from interactions with human users who
will provide the system with facts and relationships usually expressed
in a natural (but austere) form, which the program would then have to
integrate and explore
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI
>
> When we say that X is more conscious tha Y we really mean that X is more like
> a human than Y.
>
> The problem is still there how to distinguish between p-zombie and a
> conscious being.
>
> The definition of a p-zombie makes this i
That is not quite true. Each game could be reduced to a conveniently
finite number of reactions and principles. So if someone wanted to
waste his time he could create a simple physics-like modelling program
that could learn to play the games. The complexities could be refined
or reduced to a relati
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI
>
>
> It's relevant if consciousness is the secret sauce. and if it applies to the
> complexity problem.
>
> Jim is right. I don't believe in magic.
>
A Recipe for a Theory Mind
Three pints of AIT (Algorithmic Information Theory) Ale
