Re:E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language pro...
by timelinex on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @06:40AM
(#1913890)
I don't want to get into the how. The how should be a very open question. Like there is a million and one ways to program something, so there are a million and one ways to create AI. Some implementations are more efficient than others.
What you should be asking yourself is how do I make this more efficient than taking 20 years?
Re:E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language pro...
by eru on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:53PM
(#1914997)
It would be good enough to make one issue, even if it took 40 years. As long as you could copy it afterwards.
Re:E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language pro...
by Vivtek on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @05:41PM
(#1916053)
Do you have any idea how expensive a child is for that same 20 years? Way more expensive than the computer maintenance and energy bill, my friend (I offer my beleaguered bank account as evidence) - and you can't copy the software after maturation, either.
If you want a machine with the same capacity as a human you had better have something that can learn at the same rate as a human, and then add 20 years of "life experiences" and education. Then.. _maybe_ you might have a good programmer.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but us meat sacks are better at doing that, evolution has stumbled upon some pretty cool hacks that make it cheap enough (think of a 20 year computer maintenance and energy bill!) to have a "sentient" being.