From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 16:21:16 MDT
Perhaps this is just semantic nitpickery, but I don't think it's accurate to
call it a *programming* bottleneck.
It's an AI design bottleneck.
And, until this AI design bottleneck is convincingly solved, we won't know
for sure if AI requires more processing power than is currently available.
We also won't know if there is a programming bottleneck -- i.e. depending on
what the correct AI design is, AI may or may not require vast numbers of
lines of code.
I'm betting that our Novamente design breaks through the AI design
bottleneck, but I don't pretend to have adequate evidence of this to
And, the Novamente design is pretty well fleshed out, but even if you
believe it, we don't understand the dynamics of a completed Novamente (which
we don't have) well enough to tell if it will need 200 or 20,000
state-of-the-art Linux boxes to achieve a kick-ass level of general
-- Ben G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Samantha
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 4:53 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Failure of AI so far
> On Thursday 22 May 2003 11:06 pm, Ramez Naam wrote:
> > From: Samantha [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > I think the point is that the more powerful hardware would make
> > > the AI implemented on that hardware more powerful
> > This makes intuitive sense. Nevertheless, the opinion of most AI
> > researchers is that there is a programming bottleneck which limits
> > our ability to use greater computing power for /general/ AI
> > purposes. (This is not true for min / max game-playing systems or
> > neural nets, both of which benefit from the simple addition of
> > computing power.)
> Sure, but these two truths are actually mostly orthogonal. The AI
> itself requires more progamming power than is currently feasible AND
> there is a programming bottleneck.
> - s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT