On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 8:29 am Alan Grimes via AGI, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Questions? Comments? Problems? We need to get this right. I cannot > > depict the context of brain science and AI/AGI properly, nor the > > uniqueness of my chip design without everyone understanding this. It's > > required learning. Sorry! :-) > > > > NUTS! > > Talking about chip design is NUTS unless you can show me f() such that: > > A. f() can be computed by proposed chip faster than it can be emulated > by COTS hardware. > B. you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that f() actually has something > to do with AGI. > C. That it is actually commercially feasible to build your chip that > runs f() really well. > > So, for the moment, pretend that all computation is performed by magical > faries that fly around inside your computer's chassis and explain to me > what f() is.... > The next step is to demonstrate (prove) that what you ask of me is impossible, because it presupposes the very science mistake I am trying to reveal. Which I may as well do. AGI is solved empirically by neuroscience and physics. In doing so you will have empirical proof of the hypothesis that you have to assume is true for your comment to be meanibgful in context. So I'll now describe that science by extending the diagram and carefully describing the real problem. In the next post. Colin ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M058633280e2c4106a628a33c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
