> > * Reusability
> > An AI is something too complex to be rewritten every few years.
> It is not just
> An AI is something too complex to be written, period. At least explicitly,
> by mere humans. I'm really surprised some people are not yet tired of this
> exercise in futility, slowly but surely reaching epic proportions.
I am not sure what this statement is supposed to mean, actually.
Of course, an AI system has to be a self-organizing learning system, in
which not all details of the system's RAM-state are specified by the
But I suspect you mean something stronger than that
> > the procedures, it's also the knowledge the system has
> accumulated. This means
> > that all the components will have to be reusable to an
> unprecedented extent. An
> > idea is reusable, but its implementation is not.
> You're describing good system design. All very useful, but not for AI.
> Because explicitly coded AI is too hard for monkeys. Says at least this
It seems to me that, because YOU don't understand how to program real AI,
you're asserting that no one does.
I don't see any rational argument presented in your message, just a strong
opinion that building AI is too hard for humans.
> > that would allow many people to contribute, without breaking the system.
> > Deductive thought is just one subsystem, other subsystems are
> spatial thought,
> > classification, clustering, self-analysis, etc.
> I hope you like it in there, where you're sitting. I've been there myself,
> briefly, but thankfully, have gotten better since.
All right, your tone has gotten sufficiently irritating that I won't waste
any more time replying to the numerous further glib and incorrect points in
Back to work...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:01 MDT