It is indeed one component of such an AGI, but it hardly qualifies as a "grand theory" of AI.

I think people at MIT are kind of jealous of AGI theorists, looking at the way they assert their claims of a "unified theory", as if they invented something wholly new and wonderful while making their uber-theoretical brains work on this grand problem that noone else ever thought about.

That is, after decades of dabbling with all sorts of nonsense like those stupid "gesture making" robots and whatnot, they come to realize that probabilistic inference is the key *now*? Like 50 years late?

And they needed the cognitive science department to figure that out? Is it because the AI lab is still infested by behaviorists?

Why didn't they just ask the theorists or make a survey of mathematical AI theories that have been in existence for several decades?????

Is it really surprising that a general purpose AI needs a) probabilistic inference b) a universal computer with probabilistic primitives?

In fact, those turn out to be _some_ of the axioms of a general purpose AI, discovered by Ray Solomonoff in the second half of 20th century.

I am laughing now.

I wonder if Isa is good in bed. Because whenever I'm reading Dick, I'll feel like I'm effing her from now on.

oh shit now i know i'm sleepy =) Meant TRAC as suggested in another post. Really, web based stuff is the best bet. Who in his right mind would use a stupid windows program for that? *shudder*

Please read the title =)

As an inactive KDE developer, may I suggest that we name it KDE Bloatspace Desktop and KDE Bloatspace Netbook? :D

Which means I can work my ass off alone in my home, while the boss and other co-workers can gladly screw me over because they don't see my face.

I have no idea why I keep going there, though.

Very glad to hear progress on the freebsd front!

Hey, but we are the new proletariat, aren't we? So it only seems appropriate we got a vacation in Russia.

As someone else pointed out, Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was a paradox meant to illustrate the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. (Much like the antinomies in set theory that were meant to show basic flaws in the theory)

That is to say, only an idiot would take it seriously. Including these idiots of scientists who are trying to apply the said paradox and the people who comment on it as if the Copenhagen interpretation was correct.

And let's not forget hordes of moronic professors who teach the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were some kind of received wisdom. That's how smart the average population is. Not much.

The slightly smarter person would reckon that, the Copenhagen interpretation does not make any sense, and there is no such magical event as a wave-collapse. That is why, people are trying to find more scientifically plausible interpretations of QM.

I just hope they don't call it the qvirus. Please. Don't do it!

Next you'll have is biologists who will invent the field of quantum biology (which already exists, but forget about it for the fun of the moment), and claim that it is about harnessing the biological variety of parallel universes.

And then presumably, head back to the church of scientology.

No f****** way!

What if Jack Bauer isnt around?