🚀 go-pugleaf

Louis Savain wrote:
> science in disarray.  My main criticism of AI scientists *in general*
> (I do admire a sizable few, especially makers of autonomous learning
> robots) is not they are not bright (they are some of the brightest
> people on earth), or that they have not accomplished much.  The
> problem is that they worship complexity for its own sake.  They expect
> the solution to the common sense problem be hard and complicated and
> they conduct their research accordingly.  That, IMO, is a sure recipe
> for failure.

People who have read newsgroups for several years have seen dozens
and dozens of crackpot theories come and go. That all of the bright
AI scientists would have been so mired in academia that they would
miss the simple solution you have found is about a 10,000 to 1 shot.
This project has the characteristics of what is called psuedo-science.

However, I think why not wait and see the demo. That you broke the
news about this before having the demo ready was a mistake. I visited
your website and noticed you had the file size of the demo specified.
I think it was like 658k indicating you had already done the work on
it. People are going to figure then that it is not working right.
Perhaps unlike some others, I'd be delighted to see a "breakthrough".
What is your reason for not getting a patent?

Regards,
Stephen