From: Mitchell Porter (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 22:30:37 MDT
--- James Rogers <email@example.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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT