From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 01:19:27 MDT
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 21:49, James Rogers wrote:
> On 8/20/03 4:37 PM, "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> > Isn't this another way of reiterating your fundamental assumption without
> > actually supporting it? I have no way of accurately guessing how many
> > equally efficient workable AGI designs there might be at this point.
>
> Almost everyone who responded to my assertion did not grok it. That may
> have been a communication failure on my part or simply that I assumed the
> audience had sufficient contextual background to figure it out. Mixed with
> a bit of apparent reading non-comprehension. I've been meaning to get back
> to this but stepping through it from the primitives will be painfully
> lengthy so time is an issue. The reasoning behind my assertion is actually
> fairly elegant in a formal sense and you can prove it with the clever
> application of things we've already discussed on this list; I thought
> someone might put the pieces together.
>
No scribblings about how elegant the proof is in the margins of the e-pages if
you please!
It sounds like you are doing some fun work. So I will wait for your reasons
for the apparent confident assertion. Maybe you will have a few
computational goodie morsels to share when you come back. :-)
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT