And, just to clarify: the fact that I set up this list and pay $12/month for its hosting, and deal with the occasional list-moderation issues that arise, is not supposed to give my **AI opinions** primacy over anybody else's on the list, in discussions.... I only intervene as moderator when discussions go off-topic, not to try to push my perspective on people ... and on the rare occasions when I am speaking as list owner/moderator rather than as "just another AI guy with his own opinions", I try to be very clear that that is the role I'm adopting..
ben g On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brad, > > Sorry if my response was somehow harsh or inappropriate, it really wasn't > intended as such. Your contributions to the list are valued. These last > few weeks have been rather tough for me in my entrepreneurial role (it's not > the best time to be operating a small business, which is what Novamente LLC > is) so I may be in a crankier mood than usual for that reason. > > I've been considering taking a break from this email list myself for a few > weeks or months, not because I don't enjoy the discussions, but because > they're taking so much of my time lately! > > I guess the essence of my response to you was > > *** > What I don't see in your counterproposal is any kind of grounding of your > ideas in a theory of mind. That is: why should I believe that loosely > coupling a bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets, as you suggest, is going to > lead to an AGI capable of adapting to fundamentally new situations not > envisioned by any of its programmers? I'm not completely ruling out the > possiblity that this kind of strategy could work, but where's the beef? I'm > not asking for a proof, I'm asking for a coherent, detailed argument as to > why this kind of approach could lead to a generally-intelligent mind. > *** > > and I don't really see what is offensive about that, but maybe my judgment > is "off" this week... > > > -- Ben G > > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> Well, I guess you told me! I'll just be taking my loosely-coupled >> "...bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets..." right on out of here. No need to >> worry about me venturing an opinion here ever again. I have neither the >> energy nor, apparently, the intellectual ability to respond to a broadside >> like that from the "top dog." >> >> It's too bad. I was just starting to fell "at home" here. Sigh. >> >> Cheers (and goodbye), >> Brad >> >> Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >>> >>> A few points... >>> >>> 1) Closely associating embodiment with GOFAI is just flat-out >>> historically wrong. GOFAI refers to a specific class of approaches to AI >>> that wer pursued a few decades ago, which were not centered on embodiment as >>> a key concept or aspect. >>> 2) >>> Embodiment based approaches to AGI certainly have not been extensively >>> tried and failed in any serious way, simply because of the primitive nature >>> of real and virtual robotic technology. Even right now, the real and >>> virtual robotics tech are not *quite* there to enable us to pursue >>> embodiment-based AGI in a really tractable way. For instance, humanoid >>> robots like the Nao cost $20K and have all sorts of serious actuator >>> problems ... and virtual world tech is not built to allow fine-grained AI >>> control of agent skeletons ... etc. It would be more accurate to say that >>> we're 5-15 years away from a condition where embodiment-based AGI can be >>> tried-out without immense time-wastage on making not-quite-ready supporting >>> technologies work.... >>> >>> 3) >>> I do not think that humanlike NL understanding nor humanlike embodiment >>> are in any way necessary for AGI. I just think that they seem to represent >>> the shortest path to getting there, because they represent a path that **we >>> understand reasonably well** ... and because AGIs following this path will >>> be able to **learn from us** reasonably easily, as opposed to AGIs built on >>> fundamentally nonhuman principles >>> >>> To put it simply, once an AGI can understand human language we can teach >>> it stuff. This will be very helpful to it. We have a lot of experience in >>> teaching agents with humanlike bodies, communicating using human language. >>> Then it can teach us stuff too. And human language is just riddled >>> through and through with metaphors to embodiment, suggesting that solving >>> the disambiguation problems in linguistics will be much easier for a system >>> with vaguely humanlike embodied experience. >>> >>> 4) >>> I have articulated a detailed proposal for how to make an AGI using the >>> OCP design together with linguistic communication and virtual embodiment. >>> Rather than just a promising-looking assemblage of in-development >>> technologies, the proposal is grounded in a coherent holistic theory of how >>> minds work. >>> >>> What I don't see in your counterproposal is any kind of grounding of your >>> ideas in a theory of mind. That is: why should I believe that loosely >>> coupling a bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets, as you suggest, is going to >>> lead to an AGI capable of adapting to fundamentally new situations not >>> envisioned by any of its programmers? I'm not completely ruling out the >>> possiblity that this kind of strategy could work, but where's the beef? I'm >>> not asking for a proof, I'm asking for a coherent, detailed argument as to >>> why this kind of approach could lead to a generally-intelligent mind. >>> >>> 5) >>> It sometimes feels to me like the reason so little progress is made >>> toward AGI is that the 2000 people on the planet who are passionate about >>> it, are moving in 4000 different directions ;-) ... >>> >>> OpenCog is an attempt to get a substantial number of AGI enthusiasts all >>> moving in the same direction, without claiming this is the **only** possible >>> workable direction. >>> Eventually, supporting technologies will advance enough that some smart >>> guy can build an AGI on his own in a year of hacking. I don't think we're >>> at that stage yet -- but I think we're at the stage where a team of a couple >>> dozen could do it in 5-10 years. However, if that level of effort can't be >>> systematically summoned (thru gov't grants, industry funding, open-source >>> volunteerism or wherever) then maybe AGI won't come about till the >>> supporting technologies develop further. My hope is that we can overcome >>> the existing collective-psychology and practical-economic obstacles that >>> hold us back from creating AGI together, and build a beneficial AGI ASAP ... >>> >>> -- Ben G >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:34 AM, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> So, it has, in fact, been tried before. It has, in fact, always >>> failed. Your comments about the quality of Ben's approach are >>> noted. Maybe you're right. But, it's not germane to my >>> argument which is that those parts of Ben G.'s approach that >>> call for human-level NLU, and that propose embodiment (or >>> virtual embodiment) as a way to achieve human-level NLU, have >>> been tried before, many times, and have always failed. If Ben >>> G. knows something he's not telling us then, when he does, I'll >>> consider modifying my views. But, remember, my comments were >>> never directed at the OpenCog project or Ben G. personally. >>> They were directed at an AGI *strategy* not invented by Ben G. >>> or OpenCog. >>> >>> >>> The OCP approach/strategy, both in crucial specifics of its parts >>> and particularly in its total synthesis, *IS* novel; I recommend a >>> closer re-examination! >>> >>> The mere resemblance of some of its parts to past [failed] AI >>> undertakings is not enough reason to dismiss those parts, IMHO, >>> dislike of embodiment or NLU or any other aspect that has a GOFAI >>> past lurking in the wings not withstanding. >>> >>> OTOH, I will happily agree to disagree on these points to save the >>> AGI list from going down in flames! ;-) >>> >>> -dave >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [Powered >>> by >>> Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >>> Director of Research, SIAI >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first >>> overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> < >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify < >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [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 >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
