On 12/21/07, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The above propositions have terms expressed in RDF, but are presented in
the lispy fashion desired by the original Fluid Construction Grammar
implementers. (predicate subject object). Note that I include
discourse axioms (e.g.
Greetings j.k.
one response: Given the example of exploring all math avenues...
1. (possible?) I'm not able to appreciate the task being considered, but
I'm willing to take your word that it is possible and desirable.
2. (qualify as way beyond) I submit that it is way beyond the human
http://www.mindmakers.org/projects/Psyclone
http://mindmakers.org/mindmakers/openair/airPage.jsp
http://mindmakers.org/mindmakers/openair/download/downloadPage.jsp
- Message d'origine
De : Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : agi@v2.listbox.com
Envoyé le : Jeudi, 20 Décembre 2007,
Thanks Bruno,
I will include a link for the OpenAir Java implementation in my link list at:
http://texai.org/blog/software-links/
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Artificial Intelligence Researcher
http://texai.org/blog
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
-
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to write an NL interface that uses templates to eliminate
parsing and thus achieve 100% accuracy for a restricted subset of English
(for example, asking the user to disambiguate parts of speech, syntax etc).
It seems that such a
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find difficult,
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied
definitions of agent and environment and intelligence are not
connected to real world usages of those terms, because he allows all of
these things to depend on infinities
On Dec 21, 2007 6:56 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied
definitions of agent and environment and intelligence are not
connected to real world usages of those terms,
--- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 6:56 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied
definitions of agent and environment and intelligence are not
On Dec 21, 2007 10:36 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem here seems to be that we can't agree on a useful definition of
intelligence. As a practical matter, we are interested in an agent meeting
goals in a specific environment, or a finite set of environments, not all
Matt: Humans cannot recognize intelligence superior
to their own.
This like this whole thread is not totally but highly unimaginative. No one
is throwing out any interesting ideas about what a superior intelligence
might entail. Mainly it's the same old mathematical, linear approach.
I fail to see why it would not at least be considered likely that a
mechanical brain that could do all the major useful mental processes the
human mind does, but do them much faster over a much, much larger recorded
body of experience and learning, would not be capable of greater
intelligence
How about how many useful patents the AGI can lay claim to in a year.
We feed in all the world's major problems and ask it for any inventions
which would provide cost effictive partial solutions towards solving these
problems.
Obviously there will be many alternate problems and solution paths
--- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intelligence is 'what brains do'
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't you read any superhero/superpower comics or sci-fi? Obviously there
are an infinite number of very recognisable forms which a superhuman
intelligence could take.
---
They include a Parallel for statement for the .Net platform that
I think will be eventually copied by the Java community. It seems
to have low overhead, and I suppose that it works by having a hidden
thread pool and VM optimization to execute the designated byte-codes in
parallel.
Let me
As a lawyer, I can tell you there is no clear agreed upon definition for
most words, but that doesn't stop most of us from using un-clearly defined
words productively many times every day for communication with others. If
you can only think in terms of what is exactly defined you will be denied
17 matches
Mail list logo
