> My suggestion (which applies to all AGI researchers) to assess the
> merits of AGI models is to consider the following 4 points:
> 1) speed
> 2) approximation (=fault tolerance/robustness)
> 3) flexibility
> 4) adaptiveness
> And it seems that speed is the limiting factor with current hardware.
I noticed that too. Seemed like this list doesn't archive attachments
(or has particularly good SPAM filter :-). I don't have the paper posted
on any site. Will send you a PDF (748 KB). If others want a copy, let me
know via email.
Thanks!
J. W.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I just put demos of NARS 4.2 (a Java version and a Prolog version) and
> several recent papers at
> http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/peiwang/papers.html.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Pei
Hello =)
I just took a brief look at your web site and demos. It's good that
you have probably the onl
I can't find it in the archives. Can you give me a link?
Thanks,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of J. W. Johnston
...As AGI testing and validation goes, some might recall in my IVI
Architecture posted here about a year ago, I specified
I like the gist of it ... though just did quick skim of the paper. In
particular I like the idea of pushing/orienting AGI systems toward NLU
and human standards to promote "usability" (or more properly: our
ability to mutually relate).
As AGI testing and validation goes, some might recall in my I
Hi,
I don't think that trying to "overfit" one's AGI system to some specific set
of tests is a really useful approach.
Also, I don't think that intelligence tests, as currently formulated for
psychometric testing purposes, form a very natural set of "developmental
milestones" for an AGI system.
Hi Ben,
You think it's a silly approach because...?
I'm just about to read their paper and thus I haven't
formed an opinion on their approach yet myself.
Thanks
Shane
--- Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This may be of interest to someone...
>
> Psychometric AI:
>
> http://www
Mentifex,
Thanks for the entertaining post!
However, I personally consider it a bit of an overreaction ;-)
Dubya is not my favorite US President; however, in all probability, who is
or isn't the leader of one particular country in 2004 is unlikely to have a
large effect on the future of mind in
This may be of interest to someone...
Psychometric AI:
http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/peri/main.html
A slightly silly approach, IMO, but it would certainly be a tractable
research program to apply NM to these tasks
I'm more interested in the AGI-SIM approach, however...
-- Ben
---
To unsubsc
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> [...]
> In short, it really makes no sense to create an AI, allow it to
> indirectly affect human affairs, and then make an absolute decision
> to keep it in a box.
>
> And it also makes no sense to create an AI and not allow it
> to affect human affairs
10 matches
Mail list logo
