Before I present my own view it would be remiss of me to neglect other groups of Artificial Intelligence researchers not mentioned in the original diary.
The first and most interesting is the group of Computer Scientists such as Marcus Hutter and Juergen Schmidhuber. These are the inductionist equivalent of logicians. They are also the antithesis of connectionists, but their formalism instead of logic is based on the maths of Algorithmic Information Theory. As such they take for their inspiration Godel, Turing and Kolmorogov. It is very proof heavy, and interesting. However the approaches are generally not suited to real time problems, and I have doubts of how useful the systems would be in some situations such as dealing with other learning systems (which I will not go into here). Also they are not very biologically plausible.
Then there is the Artificial General Intelligence group, or Real AI. I probably do them a disservice, by lumping Ben Goertzel and co and Eliezer Yudowsky and Co. However they both represent a form of AI I don't like. It is the one the tries to create computational structures for the words we have created for things in our minds. Such as concepts, memories, thinking. For once I am with the behaviourists on this one, these things should not be explicitly coded for.
So where do I fit into to all this. Peg me somewhere between a Godel Machine and evolution. Where as Juergen relies on proof to make sure that his machines continue to improve, I try to use the less reliable but also less computationally expensive method of competition to make sure that the best self-modifiers survive. Some of my thoughts can be found here at my Codesoup project page.
I dodge the issue of how to define intelligence somewhat, and I am simply trying to develop a system that can adapt and mold itself to a users desires and feedback. Because this is what I think people want from an Intelligent system.
|< I think I'm going to become wealthy | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >|