Let's not engage in blanket no-go debates on this list. If there's
a doubtful claim in a publication, then question that point, not
the author's competence. (01)
There are many reasons why strong AI (as claimed by some of the
pioneers) has not succeeded. The question whether any digital
device can attain human-level intelligence is still open. (02)
In fact, there's still an open question whether a digital device
can achieve the animal-level intelligence of a bird or a beaver.
See the slide (copy below) about the bird-nest problem. (03)
I believe that solving the problem of perception and action at
the level of birds is *more critical* to general intelligence
than getting a computer to prove theorems or parse NL sentences. (04)
John (05)
_________________________________________________________________ (06)
From slide 5 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/micai.pdf (07)
BIRD NEST PROBLEM (08)
Robots can perform many tasks with great precision. (09)
But they don’t have the flexibility to handle unexpected shapes: (010)
* They can’t wash dishes the way people do — with an open-ended
variety of shapes and sizes. (011)
* And they can’t build a nest in an irregular tree with irregular
twigs, straw, and moss. (012)
If a human guides a robot through a complex task with complex
material, the robot can repeat the same task in the same way. (013)
But it doesn’t have the flexibility of a bird, a beaver, or a human. (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (015)
|