Mike, On 4/24/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve:What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving > much the current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung > out.My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and > direct effort to the "missing pieces". > > You're right that creativity, small and large, is at the centre of AGI. > But I've never met an AGI-er who really does want to "wring it out" - even > say Minsky. Because the conclusion is painful. And that's that a program can > only do so much. It can't normally identify "the missing pieces" in creative > problems. >
Much of my working career has been as a high-tech consultant of last resort - someone that an investor brings into a failing company just before "pulling the plug". Since in a real sense I must compete creatively with those who preceded me - and who probably know more about the problem domain than I do, I have had to develop a general approach to creativity in these situations. The one that seems to work best is to set about proving that there is no solution, and somewhere along the way to a proof there will emerge an insurmountable gap that points the way to a solution. > > The main way science does that - and science surely has to be a major > paradigm of creativity - is, in part, by scientists going out into the > field, and collecting fresh observations, and performing new tests, (and > even touching and talking to patients). You have to, of course, if you're > trying to be creative and discover something, look for new kinds of evidence > and perform new kinds of experiments, But there is no substitute for going > into the field. You can't just do it in the computer room, or study. And you > can't just direct others, from the comfort of your computational armchair, > to look for you. > > Actually this is fundamental to most artistic and historical discovery. > And it's fundamental to technological creativity. You do have to play around > with those pieces of metal and get hands-on experience. > YES. One of my technical interests is longevity. Most people in this field never see anyone with gray hair! Most of my advances came from working with elderly people who were up against "age-related" disorders, and finding that many of the assumptions that "researchers" were working on were just plain wrong. Only ~1% of older people actually die from aging. The rest die of something else. My own work has been in observing and later in correcting the consistencies in the things that are actually killing older people. If you're trying to market some new product, it's vital to go out and talk > to potential customers. Or are you suggesting that scientific, artistic, > historical, technological & business creativity can be entirely programmed? > And AGI-ers needn't talk to investors? > There is SUCH a gap between the mind of an AGIer and the mind of an investor, that I doubt that anything but suspicion could be communicated. > > (You do realise, also, that the history of human creativity is the story > of endless resistance to going out into the field and on location. Natural > philosophers, for example, had to be dragged out kicking and screaming by > Bacon, before they became scientists. And this has been repeated in field > after field. Computer chairs are so comfy). > I hadn't thought about or realized this. THIS is a VERY significant statement. This suggests an appropriate caveat right at the front of any prospectus or proposal, to guide investment money away from other proposals and hopefully to the one in hand. for example: Longevity: Investments in research efforts that do NOT involve working with elderly people to solve their real-world problems that are relevant to the research, at best can only result in elegant solutions to non-problems. AGI: R&D investments must target the markets and technology of 5-10 years in the future to produce the large and solid profits that investors now expect. Computer technology has now proceeded to the point that human-like capability should be expected from new investments, yet this is not yet available in off-the-shelf software. Hence we plan to perform some actual research (currently rare for R&D efforts) to more accurately target the future market that our competitors will be doomed to miss because of their lack of research. Is this the sort of message that you think needs to be conveyed? Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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
