Mike, I agree with Brad somewhat, because I do not think copying human (or animal) intellect is the goal. It is a means to the end of general intelligence.
However, that certainly doesn't stop me from participating in a thought experiment. I think the big thing with artificial play is figuring out a good goal-creation scheme. My definition of "play" directly follows from this intuition: play is activity that results from a system that is rapidly changing its goals. In other words, play is behavior that is goal-oriented, but barely. The definition should probably be somewhat more specific-- when playing, people and animals don't just adopt totally arbitrary goals; we seem to prefer "interesting" goals. This is because there is a hidden biological agenda-- learning. But, learning is not *our* goal. Out goal is whatever arbitrary goal we have adopted for the purpose of play. One system I know of does something like this-- the "PURR-PUSS" system. Its rule is simple: if an unexpected event happens once, then the system will adopt the goal of trying to get it to happen again, by recreating the circumstances that led to it the first time. In carrying out the attempt, it should be able to greatly refine its concept of "the circumstances that led to it"-- because many of its attempts to recreate the event will probably fail. Many of these curiosity-based goals may be active at once. Since this is the system's only motivational factor, it could be called an artificial playing system (at least by my definition). -Abram On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad, > > That's sad. The suggestion is for a mental exercise, not a full-scale > project. And play is fundamental to the human mind-and-body - it > characterises our more mental as well as more physical activities - drawing, > designing, scripting, humming and singing scat in the bath, > dreaming/daydreaming & much more. It is generally acknowledged by > psychologists to be an essential dimension of creativity - which is the goal > of AGI. It is also an essential dimension of animal behaviour and animal > evolution. Many of the smartest companies have their play areas. > > But I'm not aware of any program or computer design for play - as distinct > from elaborating systematically and methodically or "genetically" on themes > - are you? In which case it would be good to think about one - it'll open > your mind & give you new perspectives. > > This should be a group where people are not too frightened to play around > with ideas. > > Brad:> Mike Tintner wrote: "...how would you design a play machine - a > machine >> >> that can play around as a child does?" >> >> I wouldn't. IMHO that's just another waste of time and effort (unless >> it's being done purely for research purposes). It's a diversion of >> intellectual and financial resources that those serious about building an >> AGI any time in this century cannot afford. I firmly believe if we had not >> set ourselves the goal of developing human-style intelligence (embodied or >> not) fifty years ago, we would already have a working, non-embodied AGI. >> >> Turing was wrong (or at least he was wrongly interpreted). Those who >> extended his imitation test to humanoid, embodied AI were even more wrong. >> We *do not need embodiment* to be able to build a powerful AGI that can be >> of immense utility to humanity while also surpassing human intelligence in >> many ways. To be sure, we want that AGI to be empathetic with human >> intelligence, but we do not need to make it equivalent (i.e., "just like >> us"). >> >> I don't want to give the impression that a non-Turing intelligence will be >> easy to design and build. It will probably require at least another twenty >> years of "two steps forward, one step back" effort. So, if we are going to >> develop a non-human-like, non-embodied AGI within the first quarter of this >> century, we are going to have to "just say no" to Turing and start to use >> human intelligence as an inspiration, not a destination. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> Mike Tintner wrote: >>> >>> Just a v. rough, first thought. An essential requirement of an AGI is >>> surely that it must be able to play - so how would you design a play machine >>> - a machine that can play around as a child does? >>> >>> You can rewrite the brief as you choose, but my first thoughts are - it >>> should be able to play with >>> a) bricks >>> b)plasticine >>> c) handkerchiefs/ shawls >>> d) toys [whose function it doesn't know] >>> and >>> e) draw. >>> >>> Something that should be soon obvious is that a robot will be vastly more >>> flexible than a computer, but if you want to do it all on computer, fine. >>> >>> How will it play - manipulate things every which way? >>> What will be the criteria of learning - of having done something >>> interesting? >>> How do infants, IOW, play? >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> agi >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by >>> Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
