Didn't it take an algorithm (an Inference Engine) to process the
heuristics? Also show me some silicon that doesn't use an algorithm
somewhere. So do you suppose the Mind Machine Project is a way to break
free of this computing/algorithmic model?
Robert C
Pamela McCorduck wrote:
Most of ear
Reunion of AI pioneers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/08sail.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=markoff%20%22artificial%20intelligence%22&st=cse
-tj
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:
> Most of early AI was heuristics, not algorithms. Some algorithms were
> incorporated into e
Most of early AI was heuristics, not algorithms. Some algorithms were
incorporated into expert systems, in the belief that if an algorithm
could solve the problem, fine; if not, heuristics might. But it was
always *might*. True, computers can't solve all problems, neither can
humans.
P.
> For me, the key formal question is whether they will come up with useful
> methods that go beyond algorithms (and even languages), because I
> believe that's necessary for the more interesting problems in AI.
I think one way to do it is to go to... Quantum Probability Theory and
Quantum Logic: h
Not besides, linkedin doesn't work that way-one must send link
requests to *individuals*. "Inviting" a listserv address does not
enable the members to link with the sender.
-- James
On 12/11/09, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Is this an appropriate use of this list. I am worried about the "what i
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Is this an appropriate use of this list. I am worried about
the "what if everbody did it?" argument.
In short, does asking a list to "friend" you scale up?
I suspect poor Pete got tripped by one of the features these social
networking sit
Is this an appropriate use of this list. I am worried about the "what if
everbody did it?" argument.
In short, does asking a list to "friend" you scale up?
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.n
Quoting Owen Densmore circa 09-12-11 09:58 AM:
> All this translates to the more simple statement that computers cannot
> solve all problems.
>
> Note: The proof simply shows that the set of all sets of strings
> (languages) is uncountable, while the set of algorithms is countable.
>
> So the key
The good news here is that Neil Gershenfeld is leading the effort.
Very down to earth, lots of street cred, and a mensch besides.
One serious problem could be the proof that some languages are not
Turing-recognizable. In computer-speak, a language is a set of
strings, and any algorithm ha
Hi Pete,
You have an interesting, very international background!
I too am a member of FRIAM, but for some reason I cannot accept the invitation.
It is probably better to do it within LinkedIn (and probably more time
consuming if you are going to do all the FRIAM members).
Regards,
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/ai-overview.html
--Mikhail
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
11 matches
Mail list logo
