Dear Steve, In a nutshell (if I'm correct), your system initially requires a vast body of knowledge. Then, you explain that its 'trick' is to use its knowledge to solve a subject's problems, by finding out what knowledge he/she is 'missing'. This knowledge must come from the AGI database.
But what is the knowledge (solution) is not in the AGi's database, nor in any human mind yet? So, how is your system supposed to create _novel_ solutions to problems? When I solve hard problems by discovering novel algorithms, my brain uses mechanisms such as finding complex analogies, not by using anyones pre-existing knowledge. Durk . Your system does not seem very inventive. Humans solve problems not only by using in order to have is that using this knowledge, it can solve a problem by finding out what knowledge a user is missing in order to On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The process that we call "thinking" is VERY different in various people. > In my own case, I was mercury poisoned (which truncates neural tubes) as a > baby, was fed a low/no fat diet (which impairs myelin growth), and then at > the age of 5, I had my metabolism trashed by general anesthesia (causing > "brain fog"). I have since corrected my metabolic problems, I now eat LOTS > of fat, and I flushed the mercury out of my system. > > However, the result of all of this was dramatic - I tested beyond genius > in some ways (first tested at the age of 6), and below average in others. I > could solve complex puzzles at lightning speed, but had the memory of an > early Alzheimer's patient. However, one thing was quite clear - whatever it > was that went on behind my eyeballs was VERY different from other people. > No, I don't mean "better" or "worse" than others, but completely different. > My horrible memory FORCED me to resort to understanding many things that > other people simply remembered, as at least for me, those understandings > lasted a lifetime, while my memory would probably be gone before the sun > went down. This pushed me into a complex variable-model version of reality, > from which I could see that nearly everyone operated from fixed models. Once > they adopted an erroneous model and "stored" some information based on it, > they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their lives. > This apparently underlies most religious belief, as children explain the > unknown in terms of God, and are then stuck with this long after they > realize that neither God nor Santa Clause can exist as "conscious" entities. > > Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. > Certainly, no one has suggested ANY reason to believe that the great > ultimate AGI of the long distant future will be immune to it. Add some > trusted misinformation (that we all get) and you have the makings of a > system that is little better than us, other than it will have vastly > superior abilities to gain superstitious learning and spout well-supported > but erroneous conclusions based on it. > > My efforts on Dr. Eliza was to create a system that was orthogonal to our > biologically-based problem solving abilities. No, it usually did NOT solve > problems in the traditional way of telling the user what is broken (except > in some simplistic cases where this was indeed possible), but rather it > focused on just what it was that the user apparently did NOT know to have > such a problem. Inform the user of whatever it is that they did not know, > and their "problem" will evaporate through obviation - something subtly > different than being "solved". Of course, some of that "knowledge" will be > wrong, but hopefully users have the good sense to skip over "Steve's snake > oil will cure all illnesses" and consider other "facts". > > One job I had was as the in-house computer and numerical analysis > consultant for the Physics and Astronomy departments of a major university. > There it gradually soaked in that the symbol manipulation of Algebra and > "higher" mathematics itself made some subtle mis-assumptions that often led > people astray. For example, if you have a value with some uncertainty (as > all values do) through a function with a discontinuity (as many interesting > functions have); when the range of uncertainty includes the discontinuity, > it is pretty hard to compute any useful result. Add to this the UNLIMITED > ultimate range of uncertainty of many things - the "uncertainty" being a > statistical statement involving standard deviations and NOT an absolute > limit, then what is the value of any computation unless you address such > issues? Of course, the answer often involves many iterations to develop the > "space" of results. It is the lack of presumption of these iterations > in algebra and other mathematics that greatly reduces their value in solving > complex real-world problems by simply giving the naive the wrong solutions > to their equations. > > If even our mathematics is questionable, and it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE > to understand our world without also incorporating unrecognized > superstitious learning, then just what is it that AGI is supposed to do for > us? Add (or multiply) the apparent ability of some software (like an > extended Dr. Eliza) to deal with things that we are really bad at (like > skeptically absorbing all of human knowledge by giving the world's > population a platform to explain what it is that they "know"), and it is > pretty clear to me that just about any intelligent person, given such tools, > will outperform any near-term conceivable AGI that lacks those tools. > > OK, so let's look at an AGI that has those tools. Basically, we are > putting the knowledge of thousands, and perhaps millions of people into a > single box. No reasonable amount of personal experience by any human or > single AGI will ever be able to compete with such a vast body of knowledge. > Once the knowledge is fully interrelatable so that a human can do anything > with it that an AGI can do, then there should be no significant difference > in problem-solving performance. > > OK, so how about having thousands/millions of AGIs all interrelating > together, instead of having humans interrelating as with Dr. Eliza like > approaches. This may indeed produce superior results - but only after we > have first built a world full of AGIs. Further, I suspect that a world full > of the SAME AGIs won't be nearly as powerful as a world full of DIFFERENT > people, who think and see things from different points of view (something we > frown at here in America). Hence, I simply do not see the impact/usefulness > of any small number of AGIs that some people seem to be excited or concerned > about, but instead see this a something that only people growing up in > America would think valuable. > > Consider Iraq for a moment. Democracy absolutely REQUIRES a consensual > view of reality. This simply isn't achievable in many parts of the world, > and is of HIGHLY questionable value even here in America. Most Americans > don't even understand and really don't care why it is that Muslims are > willing to die rather than adopt our ways. Unless Sun Tsu (author of The Art > of War) is completely wrong (probably for the first time), America and > American's dream of AGI will be long gone before there as any opportunity to > build a real AGI. > > I suspect that the REAL issue is that some people here just want to build > their projects and play with them, regardless of whether they have any real > impact on the world, and are probably annoyed by postings like this that > question the potential value of such efforts. However, in doing this, you > may be poisoning the well for future people who really DO want to change > things, hopefully for the better. > > Obviously, no one here would ever invest 10 cents into a Dr. Eliza like > approach, even if it involves a comparatively trivial effort and maybe > promises more "value" than any foreseeable AGI, for the same reason that I > am not a stone mason - it just isn't what I want to do. > > Any thoughts? > > Steve Richfield > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
