Although Cyc has historical significance, it is really regarded as a dinosaur by most professionals in the world of artificial intelligence. It is a prime example of the "ready, fire, aim" approach to AI, maintained over the years by die-hards as vastly superior technology has arisen.
The truth of the matter is that the real AI depicted in science fiction will not involve humans typing assertions and writing myriad "if-then" rules. This vocation is tantamount to script writing!
All that you do, all that you think is the result of 'wet' neural networks. Accordingly, all other schools of AI, aside from artificial neural networks, promote forgeries of human intelligence, thus the name "artificial" intelligence (with all of its negative connotations). Neural networks afford the possibility of "synthetic" intelligence, in much the same spirit as one creating a synthetic drug (i.e., it is identical in activity to a naturally obtained drug, only originating from a test tube).
I don't know where Mike is getting his information, but synthetic neural networks are now capable of much more than pattern classification (see http://www.imagination-engines.com). After all, what did Mike use to type his essay?
Further, the Turing Test is no longer considered the acid proof of AI...too many theatrics may be built into sophisticated scripts (ooh...wait a minute...wait a minute...I have to go to the head..."). Besides, how many humans do you pass on the street that couldn't pass as human on the other end of a computer terminal.
Mike, look at the literature again, see through the marketing hype, and report back to us again!
Best Wishes,
Dr. Stephen Thaler
I'm really surprised that everyone is so concerned about Koza's GA approach to invention. If you have been reading Scientific American, New Scientist, and Business Week, you will discover that I have been pioneering a unique kind of neural network system called a "Creativity Machine" that has been actively engaged in developing new inventions (some of which are now patented). Although many are accused of thinking with their genes, real invention comes from biological neurons. The Creativity Machine similarly invents using synthetic neurons.
I guess that the Stanford Technology Transfer Office is vigorously marketing a technology that emulates the extremely slow, wasteful, and laborious processes of mutation and natural selection (genetic algorithms). To see a better way, go to http://www.imagination-engines.com.
Slashdot Mirror
Although Cyc has historical significance, it is really regarded as a dinosaur by most professionals in the world of artificial intelligence. It is a prime example of the "ready, fire, aim" approach to AI, maintained over the years by die-hards as vastly superior technology has arisen. The truth of the matter is that the real AI depicted in science fiction will not involve humans typing assertions and writing myriad "if-then" rules. This vocation is tantamount to script writing! All that you do, all that you think is the result of 'wet' neural networks. Accordingly, all other schools of AI, aside from artificial neural networks, promote forgeries of human intelligence, thus the name "artificial" intelligence (with all of its negative connotations). Neural networks afford the possibility of "synthetic" intelligence, in much the same spirit as one creating a synthetic drug (i.e., it is identical in activity to a naturally obtained drug, only originating from a test tube). I don't know where Mike is getting his information, but synthetic neural networks are now capable of much more than pattern classification (see http://www.imagination-engines.com). After all, what did Mike use to type his essay? Further, the Turing Test is no longer considered the acid proof of AI...too many theatrics may be built into sophisticated scripts (ooh...wait a minute...wait a minute...I have to go to the head..."). Besides, how many humans do you pass on the street that couldn't pass as human on the other end of a computer terminal. Mike, look at the literature again, see through the marketing hype, and report back to us again! Best Wishes, Dr. Stephen Thaler
I'm really surprised that everyone is so concerned about Koza's GA approach to invention. If you have been reading Scientific American, New Scientist, and Business Week, you will discover that I have been pioneering a unique kind of neural network system called a "Creativity Machine" that has been actively engaged in developing new inventions (some of which are now patented). Although many are accused of thinking with their genes, real invention comes from biological neurons. The Creativity Machine similarly invents using synthetic neurons. I guess that the Stanford Technology Transfer Office is vigorously marketing a technology that emulates the extremely slow, wasteful, and laborious processes of mutation and natural selection (genetic algorithms). To see a better way, go to http://www.imagination-engines.com.