Eugene Leitl writes,
> The only realistic way how to get at that initial set of data is
> either growing it with an evolutionary algorithm (here the exact
> nature of the computational engine is less crucial) or scanning a
> critter. In latter case you'll have to write a very very precise yet
> high-performance neuronal emulation engine.
Exactly right, and as a consequence, no one is going to write that neuronal
emulation engine when the alternative (growing an initial set of data with
evolutionary algorithms and genetic programming) obviously surpasses manually
coding an AI.
> I'm not sure why many apparently smart people still want to do it the
> Cyc way. Codify everything explicitly, using an army of human
> programmers, until the thing can limp off on its own. I just don't see
> it work, because even groups of people are just not smart enough for
> that.
Precisely so... What the Cyc way ends up with is a vast (but manageable) data
base that does what its namesake implies: It renders encyclopedic knowledge.
Like the human caricature of a "walking encyclopedia" it is full of facts and
information, but it can't do any real or original thinking. If Cyc passes the
Turing test, it does so as a result of the incompetence of human interviewers,
not because of Cyc's artificial thought processes. IOW, just because Cyc has all
the answers, that doesn't mean it can formulate an intelligent question.
> Your average is not my average. Apart from the bootstrap problem,
> which can take arbitrarily long, no one has still validated whether
> the mechanosynthetic reaction repertoire executed by a nanorobot is
> sufficient for a full closure.
What do you mean by a full closure?
--J. R.
"The world will witness future discoveries even more
startling than that of nuclear fission. The question is:
Will we be the ones to make them?"
--Dwight Eisenhower
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:11 MDT