Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind. Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for the demos.
-
This
Not only that, if you work in IT, you might think, considering how poorly
adding people to a project works, is he getting desperate or just being foolish?
andi
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:25:56 -0700 (PDT), Ton Genah wrote
Just increasing the number doesnt guarantee a clear path towards increased
Bob Mottram wrote:
I have thought about making a robotic artist in the distant past. Some of
the first robots which I remember seeing in the 1980s used the LOGO language
to produce sketches using different coloured pens. You could maybe do
something similar to that, with a mouse-like body
Not only is each movie different for each person, it is different each time
one person sees it. The movie itself is different from the movie-witnessing
experience, and there seems to be a feeling that you could compress it by just
grabbing the inner experience. But you notice different things
It occurs to me the problem I'm having with this definition of AI as
compression. There are two different tasks here, recognition of sensory
data and reproduction of it. It sounds like this definition proposes that
they are exactly equivalent, or that any recognition system is automatically
Eugen discussed evolution as a development process. I just wanted to comment
about what Minsky said in his talk (and I have to thank this list for
pointing out that resource). He said that the problem with evolution is
that it throws away the information about why bad solutions failed. That
I can't speak for Minsky, but I would wonder what advantage would there be for
having only one agent? I think he talks about the disadvantages. How is it
going to deal with naturally different sorts of management problems and
information? It seems like it's just a better aproach to have a
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:49:47 +, Bob Mottram wrote
Some of the 3D reconstruction stuff being done now is quite impressive (I'm
thinking of things like photosynth, monoSLAM and Moravec's stereo vision) and
this kind of capability to take raw sensor data and turn it into useful 3D
models which
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:15:37 -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote
Matt Mahoney wrote:
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/20/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not that we can't come up with the right algorithms.
It's that we don't have the
computing power to implement
I wrote:
I just had a notion. The proper sensory input and motor output for an AI is
the computer screen (and sound input and regular keyboard and mouse input).
One thing that needs to exist is a freely available standard API for these
things, so people can work on them, plus
I just had a notion. The proper sensory input and motor output for an AI is
the computer screen (and sound input and regular keyboard and mouse input).
One thing that needs to exist is a freely available standard API for these
things, so people can work on them, plus implementations for the
Peter Voss mentioned trying to solve the wrong problem is the first place
as a source for failure in an AGI project. This was actually this first thing
that I thought of, and it brought to my mind a problem that I think of when
considering general intelligence theories--object permanence. Now, I
PS. http://adaptiveai.com/company/opportunities.htm
This also reminds me of something, and I know it's true of myself, and I think
it might be generally true. It seems like people tend to have their own ideas
of what they want to be done, and they are just not very interested in working
on
13 matches
Mail list logo
