On 10/21/06, Philip Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Commercially, I'm not sure if OS or CS is better.Remember Steve Job's
APPLE lost the PC market to IBM because IBM provided a more open architecture (in addition to the fact that IBM was more resourceful).We need to be careful not to lose
Commercially, I'm not sure if OS or CS is better. Remember Steve Job's
APPLE lost the PC market to IBM because IBM provided a more open
architecture (in addition to the fact that IBM was more resourceful). We
need to be careful not to lose the same way...
Remember also that IBM lost its OWN
Ontology Project? [Re: [agi] method for joining efforts]
Re the Mind Ontology page: I have written a "glossary of terms" pertinent to our discussions, including Ben's suggestion of the terms:
-- perception
-- emergence
-- symbol grounding
-- logic
and I also added many of the terms in my ar
Hi,sary of terms pertinent to our discussions, including Ben's suggestion of the terms:
-- perception
-- emergence
-- symbol grounding
-- logicOf course, those were just four terms selected at random and not intended as terms having any special role in the ontology of mind...I remain psyched
The second
project that hasnt
started yet is the Loglish language parser project. The goal of this
project
would be to build a richly featured parser library for Loglish, a
composite-language
of Lojban and English designed by Dr. Goertzel. (More information on
Loglish here:
] method for joining efforts]
The second project that hasnt started yet is the Loglish
language parser project. The goal of this project would be to build a richly
featured parser library for Loglish, a composite-language of Lojban and English
designed by Dr. Goertzel. (More information
Re the Mind Ontology page: I have written a glossary of terms pertinent to our discussions, including Ben's suggestion of the terms:
-- perception
-- emergence
-- symbol grounding
-- logic
and I also added many of the terms in my architecture (which is not meant to be final, only as aproposal
Hi Ben and others
The way I see it,we are close to buildinga complete AGI, but there are gaps to be filled in the details. In my opinion one thing that Ben can do betterto becomea leader in AGI RD is to delegatetaskstoother people / groups, ie adopt a division-of-labor strategy.
I think the
Hi YKY,I agree with you that we (the human race) are theoretically close to AGI, in the sense that 5 years of concerted effort by 10 of the right people, implementing, testing and teaching the right software code, could bring us to a human-level AGI.
And, I agree that there is no one true path to
YKY made some points about the existence of conflict issues between different AGI theorists ...
So, the way I see it, the question is how to reconcile different ways of doing thingsso that we can work together and achieve our common goal more effectively.
Since there is nounique solution to the
On 10/15/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The main problem is not the commercial one (that once you've finished your AGI, if it's privately held, you can more easily use it to make money). While I like money as much as the next guy, $$ is not the reason to make an AGI. There are
I think it sounds like a good idea, but I would suggest making it clear on your
wiki what kind of usage and redistribution terms you will allow if you want
other people to contribute. Preferably I guess it would be completely free to
copy and reuse.
If this policy will be different than the
Brian,Definitely, the idea is that the Mind Ontology should be completely free to copy and re-use. Perhaps it would be best to put it under a separate URL just for clarity in this regard; I'll think about this...
thxBenOn 10/15/06, Brian Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it sounds like a
13 matches
Mail list logo
