On 11/4/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I of course don't think that SHRDLU vs. AGISim is a fair comparison.Agreed. SHRDLU didn't even try to solve the real problems - for the simple and sufficient reason that it was impossible to make a credible attempt at such on the hardware of the d
I am happy enough with the long-term goal of independent scientific
and mathematical discovery...
And, in the short term, I am happy enough with the goals of carrying
out the (AGISim versions of) the standard tasks used by development
psychologists to study childrens' cognitive behavior...
I don
Another reason for measurements is that it makes your goals concrete. How do you define "general
intelligence"? Turing gave us a well defined goal, but there are some shortcomings. The Turing test is
subjective, time consuming, isn't appropriate for robotics, and really isn't a good goal if i
- Original Message
From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2006 9:28:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [agi] Natural versus formal AI interface languages
>I do not agree that having precise quantitative measures of system
>intelligence is critical, or
It does not help that words in SHRDLU are grounded in an artificial world. Its
failure to scale hints that approaches such as AGI-Sim will have similar
problems. You cannot simulate complexity.
I of course don't think that SHRDLU vs. AGISim is a fair comparison.
Among other counterarguments
I think SHRDLU (Blocks World) would have been more interesting if the language
model was learned rather than programmed. There is an important lesson here,
and Winograd knew it: this route is a dead end. Adult English has a complexity
of about 10^9 bits (my estimate). SHRDLU has a complexity
James Ratcliff wrote:
Not necessarily childrens language, as tehy have their own problems and
often use the wrong words and rules of grammar, but a simplified
english, a reduced rule set.
Something like no compound sentences for a start. I believe most
everything can be written without compou
Not necessarily childrens language, as tehy have their own problems and often use the wrong words and rules of grammar, but a simplified english, a reduced rule set. Something like no compound sentences for a start. I believe most everything can be written without compound sentences, and that woul
Jef, Even given a hand created checked and correct small but comprehensive Knowledge Representation of the sample world, it is STILL not a trivial effort to get the sentences from the complicated form of english into some computer processable format. The cat example you gave is unfortunalty not th
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
Pei Wang wrote:
On 11/2/06, Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Moreover, I argue that language is built on top of a heavy inductive
bias to develop a certain conceptual structure, which then renders the
names of concepts highly salient so that they can be readily
10 matches
Mail list logo
