Yuri, John, Anders and All, (01)
I think we have sufficiently exposed the key aspects of this issue
from different vantage points, and each of your positions are clear
In the solicitation for "sound bites" and "elevator pitches," we are
hoping to get them from a variety of perspective anyway. There is no
desire (at least for now) for consensus on *one* sound-bite or *one*
all-around elevator-pitch that everyone can use in the future.
Therefore, feel free to keep your positions, and let's move on, to
tackle other related issues. (03)
So, everyone ... send in your input, either at the (04)
or, via the
Thanks & regards. =ppy
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:51 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 11:10 AM, Yuriy Milov wrote:
>> We don't understand the nature of the mouse brain but a chess computer wins
> Yes, but there are only two kinds of things that computers do better
> than humans (or even birds and mammals): storing large volumes of
> data exactly and computational things like arithmetic and chess.
> For go, the computational methods can beat amateurs, but not the
> lowest level of go masters. That's because humans use perceptual
> mechanisms that no computer today can come close to matching.
> Robots can do extremely precise detail, but they can't do things that
> are trivial for humans and other animals: e.g., wash dishes the way
> people do or build a bird's nest the way birds do.
>> Court trials is just a textual games by clear rules where a judge is similar
>> to a game server, and if legal disputes go online it would be a great
>> Elevator Pitch.
> Please go do your homework on the state of the art of AI today.
> An elevator pitch for something that nobody knows how to do
> would be worthless.
> John (08)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)