Matt Mahoney wrote:
>> 'Access to' isn't the same thing as 'augmented with' of course, but I'm
>> not sure exactly what you mean by this (and I'd rather wait for you to
>> explain than guess).
>
> I was referring to one possible implementation of AGI consisting of part
> neural
> or brainlike imp
My apologies for the duplication of my previous post; I thought my mail
client failed to send the original, but actually it just dropped the echo
from the server.
Matt Mahoney wrote:
> Michael Wilson wrote:
>> Hybrid approaches (e.g. what Ben's probably envisioning) are almost certainly
>> better
I'll try and avoid a repeat of the lenghtly, fairly futile and extremely
disruptive
discussion of Loosemore's assertions that occurred on the SL4 mailing
list. I am willing to address the implicit questions/assumptions about my
own position.
Richard Loosemore wrote:
> The contribution of complex
I have no wish to rehash the fairly futile and extremely disruptive
discussion of Loosemore's assertions that occurred on the SL4 mailing
list. I am willing to address the implicit questions/assumptions about my
own position.
Richard Loosemore wrote:
> The contribution of complex systems science i
On 23 Oct 2006 at 13:26, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Whereas, my view is that it is precisely the effective combination of
> probabilistic logic with complex systems science (including the notion of
> emergence) that will lead to, finally, a coherent and useful theoretical
> framework for designing an
On 23 Oct 2006 at 12:59, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>>> Ditto with just about anything else that's at all innovative -- e.g. was
>>> Einstein's General Relativity a fundamental new breakthrough, or just a
>>> tweak on prior insights by Riemann and Hilbert?
>>
>> I wonder if this is a sublime form of
On 23 Oct 2006 at 9:39, Josh Treadwell wrote:
> This is a big problem. If China was a free nation, I wouldn't have any
> qualms with it, but the first thing China will do with AGI is marginalize
> human rights. Any nation who censors it's internet (violators are sent to
> prisoner/slave camps) a
On 23 Oct 2006 at 10:39, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> In the case of Novamente, we have sufficient academic credibility and know-
> how that we could easily publish a raft of journal papers on the details of
> Novamente's design and preliminary experimentation.
That bumps your objective success probabil
On 22 Oct 2006 at 17:22, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> It is a lot easier I imagine to find many people willing and able to
> donate on the order of $100/month indefinitely to such a cause than to
> find one or a few people to put up the entire amount. I am sure that has
> already been kicked around. W
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Of late I feel a lot of despair because I see lots of brilliant people
> seemingly mired in endlessly rehashing what-ifs, arcane philosophical
> points and willing to put off actually creating greater than human
> intelligence and transhuman tech indefinitely until they can
10 matches
Mail list logo
