Ben: > Obviously the brain contains answers to many of the unsolved problems
of
AGI (not all -- e.g. not the problem of how to create a stable goal system
under recursive self-improvement). However, current neuroscience does
NOT contain these answers.> And neither you nor anyone else has ever made
a cogent argument that
emulating the brain is the ONLY route to creating powerful AGI.
Absolutely agree re neuroscience's lack of answers (hence Richard's
assertion that his system is based on what cognitive science knows about
brain architecture is not a smart one - the truth is "not much at all".)
The cogent argument for emulating the brain - in brief - is simply that it's
the only *all-rounder* cognitive system, the only multisensory, multimedia,
multisignsystem that can solve problems in language AND maths AND
(arithmetic/algebra/geometry) AND diagrams AND maps AND photographs AND
cinema AND painting AND sculpture & 3-D models AND "body language" etc -
and switch from solving problems in any one sign or sensory system to
solving the same problems in any other sign or sensory system. And it's by
extension the only truly multidomain system that can switch from solving
problems in any one subject domain to any other, from solving problems of
how to play football to how to marshall troops on a battlefield to how to do
geometry, applying the same knowledge across domains. (I'm just
formulating this argument for the first time - so it will no doubt need
revisions!) But - correct me - I don't think there's any AI system that's
a "two-rounder", able to work across two domains and sign systems, let
alone, of course all of them. (And it's taken a billion years to evolve this
all-round system which is clearly grounded in a body)
It LOOKS relatively straightforward to emulate or suspersede this system,
when you make the cardinal error of drawing specialist comparisons - your
we-can-make-a-plane-that-flies-faster-than-a-bird argument (and of course we
already have machines that can think billions of times faster than the
brain). But inventing general, all-round systems that are continually alive,
complex psychoeconomies managing whole sets of complex activities in the
real, as opposed to artificial world(s) and not just isolated tasks, is a
whole different ballgame, to inventing specialist systems.
It represents a whole new stage of machine evolution - a step as drastic as
the evolution of life from matter - and you, sir, :), have scant respect for
the awesomeness of the undertaking (even though, paradoxically, you're much
more aware than most of its complexity). Respect to the brain, bro!
It's a little as if you - not, I imagine, the very finest athletic
specimen - were to say: hey, I can take the heavyweight champ of the world
... AND Federer... AND Tiger Woods... AND the champ of every other sport.
Well, yeah, you can indeed box and play tennis and actually do every other
sport, but there's an awful lot more to beating even one of those champs let
alone all or a selection of them than meets the eye (even if you were in
addition to have a machine that could throw super-powerful punches or play
superfast backhands).
Ben/MT: none of the unsolved
problems are going to be solved - without major creative leaps. Just look
even at the ipod & iphone - major new technology never happens without
such
leaps.
Ben:The above sentence is rather hilarious to me.> If the Ipod and Iphone
are your measure for "creative leaps" then
there have been loads and loads of major creative leaps in AGI and
narrow-AI research. As an example of a creative leap (that is speculative
and may be wrong, but is certainly creative), check out my hypothesis of
emergent social-psychological
intelligence as related to mirror neurons and octonion algebras:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2007/mirrorself.pdf
Ben,
Name ONE major creative leap in AGI (in narrow AI, no question, there's
loads).
Some background here: I am deeply interested in, & have done a lot of work,
on the psychology & philosophy of creativity, as well as intelligence.
So your "creative" paper is interesting to me, because it helps refine
definitions of creativity and "creative leaps". The ipod & iphone do indeed
represent brilliant leaps in terms of interfaces - with the touch-wheel and
the "pinch" touchscreen [as distinct from the touchscreen itself] - v. neat
lateral ideas which worked. No, not revolutionary in terms of changing vast
fields of technology, just v. lateral, unexpected, albeit simple ideas. I
have seen no similarly lateral approaches in AGI.
Your paper represents almost a literal application of the idea that
creativity is ingenious/lateral. Hey it's no trick to be just
ingenious/lateral or fantastic. How does memory work? - well, you see,
there's this system of angels that ferry every idea you have and file it in
an infinite set of multiverses...etc... Anyone can come up with fantastic
ideas. The trick is to come up with those lateral ideas that actually *work*
if they're inventions, and are actually true and grounded in the evidence,
if they're scientific/historical/artistic theories. (Remember my singularity
point? - it is clearly no problem for people to speculate fantastically
about future AGI's, because there's nothing to ground it in - ask them to
speculate about the next stage of human evolution, and whoops they'll shut
up fast, because then you clearly have to ground speculation, and that's
hard).
Your paper contains no evidence whatsoever for your idea of multiple selves.
Check out Minsky's Emotion Machine for an equally fantastic idea of multiple
selves - also ungrounded. Ditto your paper re free will connecting in some
way I can't remember to multiverses. Stuff about mirror neurons does not
constitute evidence. If you want to produce evidence, you'll have to show
those multiple selves *at work* - I'd say show me some human dialogue,
inner or outer, where I can see those multiple selves in action - but
certainly show me some forms of behaviour.
You clearly like producing new psychological ideas - from a skimming of your
work, you've produced several. However, I didn't come across a single one
that was grounded or where any attempt was made to ground them in direct,
fresh observation (as opposed to occasionally referring to an existing
scientific paper). In terms of creative psychology, that is consistent with
your resistance to producing prototypes - and grounding your
invention/innovation.
Now compare yourself with Hawkins - not the greatest of creative thinkers,
by any means, but a reasonable one - every new neuroscientific idea he has
is grounded, and he does produce prototypes. Frankly, I suggest, any
inventor who really wants to succeed knows he must do this - it's in his
interests even more than those of his clients.
There are at least two stages of creative psychological development - which
you won't find in any literature. The first I'd call simply "original"
thinking, the second is truly "creative" thinking. The first stage is when
people realise they too can have new ideas and get hooked on the excitement
of producing them. Only much later comes the second stage, when thinkers
realise that truly creative ideas have to be grounded. Arguably, the great
majority of people who may officially be labelled as "creatives", never get
beyond the first stage - you can make a living doing just that. But the most
beautiful and valuable ideas come from being repeatedly refined against the
evidence. People resist this stage because it does indeed mean a lot of
extra work , but it's worth it. (And it also means developing that inner
faculty which calls for actual evidence).
P.S. Re multiple selves, you (like Minsky) shouldn't confuse the fact that
we are actors who can adopt vast, indeed infinite numbers of personas and do
so in all our different activities, with the idea that we have multiple
selves. I am sure you can do half-way decent imitations of Brad Pitt and
Dustin Hoffman et al, (with the fascinatingly intricate help of mirror
neurons) - that doesn't mean you become them, or have versions of them
inside you.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72270996-84567a
