Hi Mike, It's not so much the *kind* of programming that I or anyone else could recommend, it's just the general skill of programming - getting used to thinking in terms of, "how exactly do I solve this problem - what model or procedure do I create?" How do you specify something so completely and precisely that a mindless machine can execute it?
It's not just that, it's also understanding how the written specification (the program) translates into actions at the processor level. That's important too. Obviously having these skills and knowledge is not the answer to creating AGI - if it was, it'd have been solved decades ago. But without understanding how computers work, and how we make them work for us, it is too easy to fall into the trap of mistaking a computer's operation in terms of some kind of homunculus, or that it has a will of its own, or some other kind of anthropic confusion. If you don't understand how to program a computer, you will be tempted to say that a chess program that can beat Gary Kasparov is intelligent. Your repeated appeals to creating programs that can "decide for themselves" without specifying what they do underscores your technical weakness, because programs are nothing but exact specifications. You make good points about what General Intelligence entails, but if you had a solid grasp of the technical aspects of computing, you could develop your philosophy so much further. Matt Mahoney's suggestion of trying to create an Artificial Artist is a great example of a direction that is closed to you until you learn the things I'm talking about. Terren in response to your PS: I'm not suggesting everyone be proficient at everything, although such folks are extremely valuable... why not become one? Anyway, sharing expertise is all well and good but in order to do so, you have to give ground to the experts - something I haven't seen you do. You seem (to me) to be quite attached to your viewpoint, even regarding topics that you admit ignorance to. Am I wrong? --- On Sun, 9/7/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you tell me which kind of programming is necessary for > which > end-problem[s] that general intelligence must solve? Which > kind of > programming, IOW, can you *guarantee* me will definitely > not be a waste of > my time (other than by way of general education) ? Which > kind are you > *sure* will help solve which unsolved problem of AGI? > > P.S. OTOH the idea that in the kind of general community > I'm espousing, (and > is beginning to crop up in other areas), everyone must be > proficient in > everyone else's speciality is actually a non-starter, > Terren. It defeats the > object of the division of labour central to all parts of > the economy. If you > had to spend as much time thinking about those end-problems > as I have, I > suggest you'd have to drop everything. Let's just > share expertise instead? > > > Terren: Good summary. I think your point of view is > valuable in the sense of > helping engineers in AGI to see what they may be missing. > And your call for > technical AI folks to take up the mantle of more artistic > modes of > intelligence is also important. > > > > But it's empty, for you've demonstrated no > willingness to cross over to > > engage in technical arguments beyond a certain, quite > limited, depth. > > Admitting your ignorance is one thing, and it's > laudable, but it only goes > > so far. I think if you're serious about getting > folks (like Pei Wang) to > > take you seriously, then you need to also demonstrate > your willingness to > > get your hands dirty and do some programming, or in > some other way abolish > > your ignorance about technical subjects - exactly what > you're asking > > others to do. > > > > Otherwise, you have to admit the folly of trying to > compel any such folks > > to move from their hard-earned perspectives, if > you're not willing to do > > that yourself. > > > > Terren > > > > > > --- On Sun, 9/7/08, Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: [agi] Philosophy of General Intelligence > >> To: agi@v2.listbox.com > >> Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 6:26 PM > >> Jiri: Mike, > >> > >> If you think your AGI know-how is superior to the > know-how > >> of those > >> who already built testable thinking machines then > why > >> don't you try to > >> build one yourself? > >> > >> Jiri, > >> > >> I don't think I know much at all about > machines or > >> software & never claim > >> to. I think I know certain, only certain, things > about the > >> psychological and > >> philosophical aspects of general intelligence - > esp. BTW > >> about the things > >> you guys almost never discuss, the kinds of > problems that a > >> general > >> intelligence must solve. > >> > >> You may think that your objections to me are > entirely > >> personal about my > >> manner. I suggest that there is also a v. deep > difference > >> of philosophy > >> involved here. > >> > >> I believe that GI really is about *general* > intelligence - > >> a GI, and the > >> only serious example we have is human, is, > crucially, and > >> must be, able to > >> cross domains - ANY domain. That means the whole > of our > >> culture and society. > >> It means every kind of representation, not just > >> mathematical and logical and > >> linguistic, but everything - visual, aural, solid, > models, > >> embodied etc etc. > >> There is a vast range. That means also every > subject domain > >> - artistic, > >> historical, scientific, philosophical, > technological, > >> politics, business > >> etc. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but there > should be > >> no limit to how > >> you progress. > >> > >> And the subject of general intelligence is > tberefore, in no > >> way, just the > >> property of a small community of programmers, or > >> roboticists - it's the > >> property of all the sciences, incl. neuroscience, > >> psychology, semiology, > >> developmental psychology, AND the arts and > philosophy etc. > >> etc. And it can > >> only be a collaborative effort. Some robotics > disciplines, > >> I believe, do > >> think somewhat along those lines and align > themselves with > >> certain sciences. > >> Some AI-ers also align themselves broadly with > scientists > >> and philosophers. > >> > >> By definition, too, general intelligence should > embrace > >> every kind of > >> problem that humans have to deal with - again > artistic, > >> practical, > >> technological, political, marketing etc. etc. > >> > >> The idea that general intelligence really could be > anything > >> else but truly > >> general is, I suggest, if you really think about > it, > >> absurd. It's like > >> preaching universal brotherhood, and a global > society, and > >> then practising > >> severe racism. > >> > >> But that's exactly what's happening in > current AGI. > >> You're actually > >> practising a highly specialised approach to AGI - > only > >> certain kinds of > >> representation, only certain kinds of problems are > >> considered - basically > >> the ones you were taught and are comfortable with > - a very, > >> very narrow > >> range - (to a great extent in line with the v. > narrow > >> definition of > >> intelligence involved in the IQ test). > >> > >> When I raised other kinds of problems, Pei > considered it > >> not "constructive." > >> When I recently suggested an in fact brilliant > game for > >> producing creative > >> metaphors, DZ considered it "childish," > because > >> it was visual and > >> imaginative, and you guys don't do those > things, or > >> barely. (Far from being > >> childish, that game produced a rich series of > visual/verbal > >> metaphors, where > >> AGI has produced nothing). > >> > >> If you aren't prepared to use your imagination > and > >> recognize the other half > >> of the brain, you are, frankly, completely > buggered as far > >> as AGI is > >> concerned. In over 2000 years, logic and > mathematics > >> haven't produced a > >> single metaphor or analogy or crossed any domains. > >> They're not meant to, > >> that's expressly forbidden. But the arts > produce > >> metaphors and analogies on > >> a daily basis by the thousands. The grand irony > here is > >> that creativity > >> really is - from a strictly technical pov - > largely what > >> our culture has > >> always said it is - imaginative/artistic and not > rational.. > >> (Many rational > >> thinkers are creative - but by using their > imagination). > >> AGI will in fact > >> only work if sciences and arts align. > >> > >> Here, then is basically why I think you're > getting > >> upset over and over by > >> me. I'm saying in many different ways, general > >> intelligence really should be > >> general, and embrace the whole of culture and > intelligence, > >> not just the > >> very narrow sections you guys espouse. And yes, I > think you > >> should be > >> delighted to defer to, and learn from > >> "outsiders", (if they deserve it), > >> just as I'm delighted to learn from you. But > you're > >> not - you resent > >> outsiders like me telling you about > "your" > >> subject. > >> > >> I think you should also be prepared to admit your > ignorance > >> - and most of > >> you, frankly, don't have much of a clue about > >> imaginative/visual/artistic > >> intelligence and vast swathes of problemsolving, ( > just as > >> I have don't have > >> much of a clue re your technology and many kinds > of > >> problemsolving...etc). > >> But there is v. little willingness to admit > ignorance, or > >> to acknowledge the > >> value of other disciplines. > >> > >> IN the final analysis, I suggest, that's just > sheer > >> cultural prejudice. It > >> doesn't belong in the new millennium when the > defining > >> paradigm is global > >> (and general) as opposed to the local (and > specialist) > >> mentality of the old > >> one - recognizing the value and interdependence of > ALL > >> parts of society and > >> culture. And it doesn't belong in a true field > of > >> *General* INtelligence. I > >> think you need to change your central philosophy > in a major > >> way and be > >> culturally open-minded. (and then just possibly > you > >> won't find me quite so > >> upsetting.) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> 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
