[ExI] Watson On Jeopardy.

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:13:59PM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:

> So demanding, some people.  ;-)
>
> If you have read McClelland and Rumelhart's two-volume "Parallel  

I've skimmed PDP when it was new. I have not read your publications
because I've asked for a list, here, twice, nicely, and no reply was 
forthcoming.

I presume http://richardloosemore.com/papers are yours?

> Distributed Processing", and if you have then read my papers, and if you  
> are still so much in the dark that the only thing you can say is "I  
> haven't seen anything in your papers that rise to the level of computer  
> science" then, well...

You know, I could rattle off a list of books (far more relevant)
you have no clue of. It's a pretty stupid game, so let's not play it.

> (And, in any case, my answer to John Clark was as facetious as his  
> question was silly.)
>
> At this stage, what you can get is a general picture of the background  
> theory.  That is readily obtainable if you have a good knowledge of (a)  
> computer science, (b) cognitive psychology and (c) complex systems.  It 

I don't see how cognitive psychology is relevant. It's good that
complex systems makes your list.
 
> also helps, as I say, to be familiar with what was going on in those PDP  
> books.
>
> Do you have a fairly detailed knowledge of all three of these areas?

Are you always an arrogant blowhard, Richard? 

> Do you understand where McClelland and Rumelhart were coming from when  
> they talked about the relaxation of weak constraints, and about how a  
> lot of cognition seemed to make more sense when couched in those terms?  
> Do you also follow the line of reasoning that interprets M & R's  
> subsequent pursuit of non-complex models as a mistake?  And the  
> implication that there is a class of systems that are as yet unexplored,  
> doing what they did but using a complex approach?
>
> Put all these pieces together and we have the basis for a dialog.
>
> But ...  demanding a finished AGI as an essential precondition for  
> behaving in a mature way toward the work I have already published...?  I  
> don't think so.  :-)

I think two things apply: you haven't build a lot of systems that
make impressive results, and you spend a lot of time on this list,
which means you don't have have a lot of quality time for work, 
whatever it is.

I've just skimmed your papers at maximum speed, and preliminary impression
is not good. I'll reserve my opinion until I can read them.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE