 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
kcaz |
| | | | | | posted 4/21/2010 19:15 |   | | | | | | | | | Well this is a little thought I was having, but I'm sure other have been thinking the same thing.
I think when people first hear about AI (like me), they race to think of some idea and try to create the next famous AI machine. This, however, is rarely the case. People end up just redoing what other have done a long time ago.
There is so little communication between individual projects, but what if everyone communicated? I know that's pretty much impossible, but if everyone posted their ideas or their work somewhere people would not redo work other have done already. They could build off of previous work.
Then if you were to adapt great projects from different fields of AI I think we would all be closer to strong AI.
| | |
| | |
hunt |
| | | | | | posted 4/21/2010 23:27 | | | | | | | | | | Well, there's two sides to the issue. On the one hand, I agree that collaborative efforts between people sharing a common goal are likely to be faster and more successful than individual efforts, by virtue of the enormity and variety of issues that AI programmers face. That being said, it is also true that having people tackle any problem with a variety of methods can yield interesting and novel approaches.
| | |
| | |
kcaz |
| | | | | | posted 4/22/2010 02:33 | | | | | | | | | | Oh, yes I see your point.
| | |
| | |
lordjakian |
| | | | | | posted 5/3/2010 12:02 | | | | | | | | | | I see your point. That reply is just the making of a dead post. Agreeing with someone......Are you seriously really satisfied?
You are "Almost" better off not typing anything to respond with, in my opinion.
Here is why.
Let us say you are one of those guys that just came to AI and have a great IDEA! The next best thing.
Everyone works off the basics. The basics were learned back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Most everything is built on that.
If your technical "New" idea isn't based on that, then you really need to give a reference that you could expect a normal person to swallow. On the the same note, don't make the first post so damn technical that the only reply has to be in kind. In other words, find that technical expert first, then ask the hard questions.
Cheers.
| | | Last edited by lordjakian @ 5/3/2010 12:04:00 PM | | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 5/3/2010 12:53 | | | | | | | | | | Do you really think that AI and even True AI supposed to be so simple that any normal person supposed to swallow a new idea? In physics and mathematics some new ideas can also be expressed with a simple equation, yet no one considers them that simple. How comes that AI just happens to be the simplest thing in science and engineering, which anyone can make and anyone can understand? And which needs no theoretical research. Because it is so simple, then of course the only problem is just to make it.
| | | Last edited by tkorrovi @ 5/3/2010 1:37:00 PM | | |
| | |
hunt |
| | | | | | posted 5/3/2010 19:49 | | | | | | | | | | I don't think there is anything wrong with starting a topic with a technical question. Just don't expect replies from people with non-technical backgrounds. As tkorrovi related, there are some questions which can only be concisely stated in technical language. These are problems which, when the proper semantics are used, can be posed precisely to others who also know the proper semantics. This is necessary in any scientific discipline. (I'm a physicist by trade, so I know how to descend into the land of jargon!)
That being said, this forum is largely populated by amateur enthusiasts who greatly enjoy thinking and working on problems in AI, but who lack a technical background. (I include myself in this category.) If one really wants to pick their brains, new topics have to be stated in laymen's terms.
I think this forum suffers from both extremes: very technical topics that die after one post, and others that are so vaguely thought out that they die of reader exasperation.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
