Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bafuture] Purely Digital Strong AI??

Expand Messages
  • Shawn Pan
    I think Cyc is a dead end as far as its original purpose is concerned. However, it does have some interesting stuff coming out
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I think Cyc is a dead end as far as its original
      purpose is concerned. However, it does have some
      interesting stuff coming out
      http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/11/215201

      There have been some development in a field called
      neural-symbolic integration... I am betting on that
      for a major break through to happen.

      --Shawn

      --- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

      >
      > On Sep 21, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Shawn Pan wrote:
      > > Ha..witty. Well, I think you know what I was
      > talking
      > > about.
      >
      > Ya, just having some fun. :-) You're right - there
      > are still
      > academics interested in it. I just haven't heard or
      > seen anything
      > interesting come out of the field in a very long
      > time. The Cyc
      > project seemed to be the last bastion - did anything
      > useful come out
      > of it?
      >
      > - Steve
      >
      >

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • J. Andrew Rogers
      ... More accurately, it is *much* easier to implement error correction when information is encoded in digital formats rather than analog formats. It should
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 25, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Wayne Radinsky wrote:
        > J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
        >> Analog and digital are interchangeable for all intents and purposes.
        >> There is nothing you cannot do in analog that you cannot do in
        >> digital and vice versa.
        >
        > I thought there was one critical difference: digital information does
        > not suffer generation loss.


        More accurately, it is *much* easier to implement error correction
        when information is encoded in digital formats rather than analog
        formats. It should probably be pointed out that, contrary to popular
        misconception, analog formats are discrete just like digital formats.
        The tradeoff is this:

        Information encoded in a digital format can be extremely resistant to
        errors for a number of reasons and at relatively little cost.
        However, digital formats tend to not degrade gracefully when an error
        manages to slip through that gauntlet.

        Information encoded in an analog format is very sensitive to
        transient errors (hence cumulative generation loss), and error
        correction/prevention is very expensive relative to digital.
        However, analog formats tend to degrade gracefully such that some
        information is recoverable from degenerate data.


        The main disadvantage of analog is that the price/performance of
        digital signal integrity is roughly a function of Moore's Law over
        time, whereas analog format integrity has had something like a quasi-
        logarithmic price/performance over time and it hit the flat part of
        that curve years ago. The price/performance curves for the two
        formats crossed each other some time in the 1980s, after which
        digital left analog in the dust. A high-end purely analog format can
        only manage about 12-bits of signal at any point in time in the real
        world, whereas you can get about 20-bits out of modestly priced
        digital formats (real bits, not marketing bits).


        J. Andrew Rogers
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.