From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 21:14:40 MDT
At 11:56 PM 24/10/05 +0100, you wrote:
>On 10/24/05, Ben Goertzel <<mailto:ben@goertzel.org>ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
>>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
>>overidealistic.
>
>Off the top of my head I can't really think of much that software tools
>could do to make the problem easier (compared to a good compiler,
>editor/IDE and set of libraries for (insert favorite programming
>language)), but I'm willing to be proved wrong.
I don't think the problem is well enough understood to even say what is needed.
What does it take for hardware to "think a though"?
>>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.
>
>Yep.
>
>>I would be more interested in your tools ideas if they were presented in a
>>more concrete way.
>
>Agreed. Richard, I think you and the people you're debating with are
>mostly talking past each other, because you're using language that just
>isn't up to the job. I'd be interested in seeing a draft specification for
>the tools/framework/whatever you want to build, with specifics on how you
>think it would help; if you could write up something like that, we could
>at least provide more constructive criticism.
>
>- Russell
Good points.
Keith Henson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT