From: Mitchell Porter (you_have_some_sort_of_bug@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 22:30:37 MDT
--- James Rogers <jamesr@best.com> wrote:
> The theory of Universal Intelligence isn't so
> valuable because it is a
> solution to the problem of AI (although it does give
> it an excellent
> mathematical basis), rather it is valuable because
> it gives us specific
> implementation problems to solve, that when solved,
> should theoretically
> result in a functional AI. Being able to know what
> needs to be done is a
> big step in the right direction.
This, I don't understand. What are the implementation
problems it gives us to solve?
Back when I made my post in February, I thought
that the architecture of an SI might consist
(in these terms) of a UI core, and peripherals
which translate domain-specific problems into
a form the UI can solve. Is the creation of
these peripheral modules the sort of implementation
problem you have in mind?
Now it looks as if the UI-core architecture
is just too slow to plausibly be an SI architecture.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT