Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February-14-08 5:11 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] reasoning knowledge.. p.s.
You are correct that MOST PEOPLE in AI treat observation/perception as
pure passive. As on many topics, most people in AI are probably wrong.
However, you keep
David said:
Most of the people on this list have quite different ideas about
how an AGI
should be made BUT I think there are a few things that most, if
not all
agree on.
1. Intelligence can be created by using computers that exist today
using
software.
Pei: What type of reasoning is needed for AI? The major answers are:
(A): deduction only, (B) multiple types, including deduction,
induction, abduction, analogy, etc.
And the other thing that AI presumably lacks currently - this sounds so
obvious as to be almost silly to say, but I can't
Hi Mike,
P.S. I also came across this lesson that AGI forecasting must stop (I used
to make similar mistakes elsewhere).
We've been at it since mid-1998, and we estimate that within 1-3 years from
the time I'm writing this (March 2001), we will complete the creation of a
program that
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everyone is talking about observation as if it is PASSIVE - as if you just
record the world and THEN you start reasoning.
Mike: I really hope you can stop making this kind of claim, for your own sake.
For what people
On 14/02/2008, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who knows what we might have achieved had that level of dedication actually
continued for 4-7 more years?
This kind of frustration is familiar to most inventors, and probably
most people on this list. Likewise I'm pretty sure that if I had
Pei,
A misunderstanding. My point was not about the psychology of
observation/vision. I understand well that psychology and philosophy are
increasingly treating it as more active/reasoned and implicitly referenced
Noe. My point is that *AI* and *AGI* treat observation as if it is passive
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
A misunderstanding. My point was not about the psychology of
observation/vision. I understand well that psychology and philosophy are
increasingly treating it as more active/reasoned and implicitly referenced
