Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 16:57:32 MDT
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> It's true that making an AGI, given current software technology, is a big
> pain, and it takes a long time to get from vision to implementation.
> I agree that better software tools would help make the process a lot easier,
> even though I have a feeling your vision of better software tools is a bit
> However, I have chosen to focus on AGI itself rather than on building better
> tools, because I've judged that given my limited resources, I'll probably
> get to AGI faster via focusing on AGI than via focusing on tools first.
> While tools work is conceptually easier than AGI work by far, it still
> requires a lot of thought and a lot of manpower.
> I would be more interested in your tools ideas if they were presented in a
> more concrete way.
But it would be a misunderstanding to treat my suggestion as "here is a a
possible good way to build an AGI." If it were that sort of suggestion, I
would be just one of a hundred tool designers with great ideas.
I am saying something much more serious. I am saying that we *need* to do
things this way. We will eventually realise that anything else is not
going to work.
We have to build systems that grow their own representations, we cannot
presuppose those representations and then, later, tack on some learning
mechanisms that will feed those representations with new knowledge. This
fundamental point is crucial to my argument, so make sure that you are
absolutely clear about that before we discuss fine details about the
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT