Rich, I’m sure meant in jest, but inappropriate none the less on this list. Regards Matthew West Member Board of Trustees From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: 04 January 2015 01:12
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A No-Go Result For Human-Level Machine Intelligence Either you are a bot or you are schizophrenic. Confess and repent. -Rich Sincerely, Rich Cooper EnglishLogicKernel.com Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 3:45 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A No-Go Result For Human-Level Machine Intelligence There are two parts to my No-Go argument (that I am now drafting as a separate paper with this title). The first is a simple calculation of the power requirements based upon a popular assertion that N (Exascale at 15JoulesPerSecond) connections or operations are required. The second is the biophysical observation that the motion of structure, requiring no major power input, is primary. Your animal case is no different from the human case, so I find it hard to justify that it is "more critical" - from my point of view it is the same problem. As I read this, BTW, it appears to suggest that birds can wash dishes or that one may simply train a beaver. I am sure this is not your intent. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:20 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
John
_________________________________________________________________
From slide 5 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/micai.pdf
BIRD NEST PROBLEM
Robots can perform many tasks with great precision.
But they don’t have the flexibility to handle unexpected shapes:
* They can’t wash dishes the way people do — with an open-ended
variety of shapes and sizes.
* And they can’t build a nest in an irregular tree with irregular
twigs, straw, and moss.
If a human guides a robot through a complex task with complex
material, the robot can repeat the same task in the same way.
But it doesn’t have the flexibility of a bird, a beaver, or a human. |
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|