|
|
|
|
|
by vSanjo
2602 days ago
|
|
I completely agree. A friend once said all we need is 'the sinew between the questions'. Connecting them (contexts, intents, etc) and making it close to 1.0 probability on decisions through the entire conversation. I think the 'marble rock' of Jarvis is there already, and with ML/AI we can likely make it 'David-shaped' but the refinement, 'warmth' and complexity of Jarvis is man-hours that would likely be better spent elsewhere. |
|