4 ms·

I completely agree with you and I am surprised by the praise in this thread. The entire research program that this books represents is dead for decades already.

• photonthug 1y ago
  It seems like you might be confusing "research programs" with things like "branding" and surface-level terminology. And probably missing the fact that society-of-mind is about architecture more than implementation, so it's pretty agnostic about implementation details. Here, enjoy this thing clearly building on SoM and edited earlier this week: ideas https://github.com/camel-ai/camel/blob/master/camel/societies/role_playing.py https://github.com/camel-ai/camel/blob/master/camel/societie...
• suthakamal 1y ago
  I pretty clearly articulate the opposite. What's your evidence to support your claim?
  • matusp 1y ago
    The problem with your argument is that what you call agent is nothing like what Minsky envisioned. The agents in Minsky's world are very simple rule based entities ("nothing more than a few switches") that are composed in vast hierarchies. The argument Minsky is making is that if you compose enough simple agents in a smart way, an intelligence will emerge. What we use today as agents is nothing like that, each agents itself is considered intelligent (directly opposing Minsky's vision "none of our agents is intelligent"), while organized along very simple principles.
    • homefree 1y ago
      This is reminding me of what I thought I was remembering, I don't have the book anymore - but I remember starting it and reading a few chapters before putting it back on the shelf, it's core ideas seemed to have been shown to be wrong.