Thanks Bob. But I meant, it looks more likely that robots will achieve - and
have already taken the first concrete steps to achieve - the goals of AGI -
the capacity to learn a range of abilities and activities.
Can you point to any single robot that has demonstrated the capability to
learn a
Richard: If someone asked that, I couldn't think of anything to say except
...
why *wouldn't* it be possible? It would strike me as just not a
question that made any sense, to ask for the exact reasons why it is
possible to paint things that are not representational.
Jeez, Richard, of course,
On 08/12/2007, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Trossen stuff looks at a glance - correct me - like we are going to see
ever more robots programmed for specialised tasks in ever more
environments.But it's arguably general intelligence and, indeed,
athleticism, that interests us here.
On 08/12/2007, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps then the reason that the
robotics revolution has indeed started - and is perceived as such by major
scientific media - is that with Darpa robots have moved successfully into
the real world and more or less unstructured environments.
Ben:Can you point to any single robot that has demonstrated the capability
to
learn a range of abilities and activities?
Fair enough. (Getting combative, huh?). Perhaps then the reason that the
robotics revolution has indeed started - and is perceived as such by major
scientific media - is
Yes I expect to see more narrow AI robotics in future, but as time
goes on there will be pressures to consolidate multiple abilities into
a single machine. Ergonomics dictates that people will only accept a
limited number of mobile robots in their homes or work spaces.
Physical space is at a
On 08/12/2007, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I.e. the AGI meets robotics meme is VERY far from affecting the
commercial robotics
industry, it would seem. Which is a shame.
This comes back to what Matt Trossen was talking about in that both he
and I think that the big innovations
So I reckon roboticists ARE actually focussed on an AGI challenge - whereas,
as I've pointed out before, there is nothing comparable in pure AGI.
To my knowledge, none of the work on the ICRA Robotic Challenge is at
this point taking a strong AGI approach
And
with all those millions of
On 08/12/2007, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or at any rate, that's my garbled
impression from cursory reading. There seems to be no way to digitally
compute/ control coordinate the movements of complex limbs in real time -
it's all way too complex. The development of analog models/
On 08/12/2007, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Millions of investment bucks doesn't go that far in robotics, unfortunately.
I hope to see progress too, but I believe you're way optimistic about
the current
state of robotics research.
As an old lag I am constantly disappointed by
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard: If someone asked that, I couldn't think of anything to say
except ...
why *wouldn't* it be possible? It would strike me as just not a
question that made any sense, to ask for the exact reasons why it is
possible to paint things that are not representational.
Jeez,
Richard: in my system, decisions about what to do next are the
result of hundreds or thousands of atoms (basic units of knowledge,
all of which are active processors) coming together in a very
context-dependent way and trying to form coherent models of the
situation. This cloud of knowledge
Mike,
When I write about my system, (which sounds like it is designed somewhat
like yours), I am talking about a system that has only been thought about
deeply, but never yet built.
When you write about my system do you actually have something up and
running? If so, hats off to you.
And, if
Mike,
What you describe - is set of AGI nodes.
AGI prototype is just one of such node.
AGI researcher doesn't have to develop all set at once. It's quite
sufficient to develop only one AGI node. Such node will be able to
work on single PC.
I believe Matt's proposal is not as much about the
Ed Porter wrote:
Mike,
When I write about my system, (which sounds like it is designed somewhat
like yours), I am talking about a system that has only been thought about
deeply, but never yet built.
When you write about my system do you actually have something up and
running? If so, hats off
It'd be interesting, I kind of wonder about this sometimes, if an AGI,
especially one that is heavily complex systems based would independently
come up with the existence some form of a deity. Different human cultures
come up with deity(s), for many reasons; I'm just wondering if it is like
some
On Dec 8, 2007 10:34 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd be interesting, I kind of wonder about this sometimes, if an AGI,
especially one that is heavily complex systems based would independently
come up with the existence some form of a deity. Different human cultures
come up with
On Dec 8, 2007 5:33 PM, Dennis Gorelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you describe - is set of AGI nodes.
AGI prototype is just one of such node.
AGI researcher doesn't have to develop all set at once. It's quite
sufficient to develop only one AGI node. Such node will be able to
work on
18 matches
Mail list logo
