From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:20:34 MDT
Personally, I don't consider academic AI a wasteland at all. I just
consider it misnamed!
A lot of the work being done by conventional AI theorists is very valuable
and interesting -- as math, as computer science, as guidance for useful
But this work -- though mostly good stuff -- rarely has much to do with what
I consider "artificial intelligence" ...
Now, say, modern theoretical sociology -- that may REALLY be a wasteland ;-p
> Barkley Vowk wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, I've read much of the stuff you've
> > written, its clear to me that you are most likely not off your meds.
> Great. Go read "Levels of Organization in General Intelligence",
> and then
> if you're interested in criticizing any of the specific theory found
> there, feel free to do so.
> Academic fields are sometimes wastelands. Nature has no a priori
> to produce truths that are easy to explain to a lay audience.
> "Credentials" are not the proper object of a university system, learning
> is. The "journals of an entire wing of academia" may easily be the wrong
> audience for any given piece of work. And it is not very hard to be more
> Bayesian than most people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT