Bob Mottram wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that
you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to
automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year.
It's worth noting in this connection that once you get up to the level of
mammals, everything is very high compliance, low stiffness, mostly serial
joint architecture (no natural Stewart platforms, although you can of course
grab something with two hands if need be) typically with significant en
On 11/02/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that state of the art is just now getting to dynamically-stable-only
> biped walkers. I've seen a couple of articles in the past year, but it
> certainly isn't widespread, and it remains to be seen how real.
Famous robots such
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that
somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will
gradually increase in intelligence until their sum total amounts to a
full
On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, any scenario that anyone has imagined for a
> sub-human-intelligence robot that would be useful enough to sell in the
> market place contains limitations that will doom it in the same way.
> That last 2% will always
On 11/02/2008, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see this for managing the download/installation of capabilities
> with periodic feedback of experience. It is less likely that
> centralized systems would effectively teleoperate large numbers of
> remote robots. The bandwidth an
Richard Loosemore wrote:
...In fact, the situation is superfically similar to Doug Lenat's
approach:
he decided on a plan, then hired people to carry out the specific
plan, with only (I am guessing... Stephen?) 10% research, while the
other 90% was about on
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
Hmmm. I'd suspect you'd spend all your time and effort organizing the people.
Orgs can grow that fast if they're grocery stores or something else the new
hires already pretty much understand, but I don't see that happening smoothly
in a pure research setting.
I would
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Mottram wrote:
> > On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that
> >> somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will
> >> gradua
>From the rewrite-in-progress of the User Manual --
1.3 Does MindForth think?
The whole purpose of Mind.Forth is to think. It is an
embodiment of the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum --
"I think, therefore I am." Mind.Forth does indeed think,
but the real questions here are, how does Mind.Forth
thin
10 matches
Mail list logo
