Mike Tintner wrote:
Colin,
Yes you and Rescher are going in a good direction, but you can make it
all simpler still, by being more specific..
We can take it for granted that we're talking here mainly about
whether *incomplete* creative works should be criticised.
If we're talking about scientific theories, then basically we're
talking in most cases about detective theories, about theories of
whodunit or whatdunit. If you've got an incomplete theory about who
committed a murder, because you don't have enough evidence, or enough
of a motive - do you want criticism? In general, you'd be pretty
foolish not to seek it. Others may point out evidence you've missed,
or other motives, or suggest still better suspects.
If we're talking about inventions, then we're talking about tools/
machines/ engines etc designed to produce certain effects. If you've
got an incomplete machine, it doesn't achieve the effect as desired.
It isn't as efficient or as effective as you want. Should you seek
criticism? In general, you'd still be pretty foolish not to. Others
may point out improved ways of designing or moving your machine
parts, or of arranging the objects-to-be-moved.
And if nothing else the simple act of presenting your ideas to others
allows you to use them as sounding-boards - you get to hear your ideas
with a clarity that is difficult to achieve alone, and become more
aware of their deficiiencies - and more motivated to solve them.
The difficulty with AGI is that we're dealing not with machines or
software that are incomplete but simply non-functioning - with
essentially narrow AI systems that haven't shown any capacity for
general intelligence and problemsolving - with machines that want to
be airplanes, but are actually motorbikes, and have never taken off,
or shown any ability to get off the ground for even a few seconds. As
a result, you have a whole culture where people are happy to tell you
how their machine works - the kind of engine or in this case software
that they're using - but not happy to tell you what their machine does
- what specific problems it addresses - because that will highlight
their complete failure so far.
Is that sensible? If you want to preserve your dignity, yes.
Acknowledging failure is v. painful and humiliating. Plus, in this
case, there's the v. serious possbility that you're building totally
the wrong machine a motorbike that will never be a plane, (or a narrow
plane that will never be a general bird) - or in this case, software
that simply doesn't and can't address the right problems at all. If
you actually want to get somewhere, though, and not remain trapped in
errors, then not presenting and highlighting what your machine does
(and how it fails) is also foolish.
You paint a very human face on the process... but I don't understand how
such things as 'painful' and 'humiliating' and 'mistaken' etc have any
formal role ... although I can see how it can operate in reality...
Critique of incomplete works only makes sense if you can tell when you
are complete! There's no agreed standard by which such a state can be
judged. That being the case, then critique of incompleteness is all that
is ever going to happen! But that is a side-bar here.
I do not see the process of proving that method-X did not work as a
humiliation or a mistake. That's the whole point of scientific method.
You posit "if method-X works, then it should behave THUS". Then you test
it. If it works, you have merely minimised doubt in method-X, you
haven't located any ultimate truth. If it fails then you have maximised
doubt that method-X is valid. Both are admirable outcomes, equally
useful in the scheme of things.
Look at Edison and the apocryphal 4000 attempts to make a light bulb. He
proved 3999 ways NOT to make a light bulb! Where's the humiliation? :-)
Seriously - if there is real science going on, the whole thing is lined
with scientific success, no matter what the outcome! Failure is part of
the system... we're here to seek truth and as long as that process is
going on - there's no humiliation...
"If you ain't failed you haven't tried"... as mah granpappy yewsd ta
say.. :-)
In the case of making choices that will result in AGI, so far I see on
one in this AGI grouping, COMP is the universal assumption. All eggs are
in 1 basket. There is nothing wrong with continuing the 50 year non-stop
run of failure (a la lightbulbs) to make AGI based on COMP
principles.....a very noble sacrifice...but hasn't 50 years of failure
generated enough doubt in COMP that perhaps non-COMP approaches might be
actively sought by a community seeking AGI?....I'm suggesting that the
discourse be broadened to include other options and thereby attract the
attention of other workers in the fields of machine learning, machine
consciousness, scientific study of consciousness, cognitive science etc
etc - most of which do not assume COMP, but are open to finding out
about the reality of human cognition and thereby gain access to AGI.
Theories and inventions are two sides of the same science process. The
former looks at natural outcomes seeks rules that describe initial
conditions. The latter seeks initial conditions that result in a certain
outcome. Being precious about failure or critique is not part of the
process. At all stages choices are made and results must be critically
assessed.
As a nuance to the role of 'science' in 'computer science'... I would
say that formally, computer 'science' is not scientific for the reason
that software documents are not laws of nature the resultant machine
behaviour originates from causality built into the physics of the
hardware substrate. At best, computer programs are "correlates", not the
sought-after "critical dependency" which we know gets us as close to
natural causality as we can get. The computer substrate, configured as
per the program, causally necessitates the resultant behaviour, not the
program whic, at runtime, is completely absent from the circumstance,
even in 'interpretive' runtime environments.
So the role of scientific behaviour in the production of an AGI seems to
be in need of quite a deal of review - especially if it is to be taken
seriously in a multidisciplinary approach to AGI where all the folks are
used to criticism and expect it (demand it!), and are OK with being
wrong. The flip side of this in technological development is that when
something has a mounting pile of evidence of being based on a false
premise, that continuing to fail to make choices that direct your
efforts in other directions.... now that is something to be embarrassed
about.... :-)
I understand how tied up people can get with a particular standpoint -
if you have defended it for 15 years and suddenly the whole basis of it
is gone - for obvious empirical reasons that you cannot deny - strange
behaviours result.... for example... my supervisor one had a paper
rejected thus:
"This paper does not show that (SUCH and SUCH) is the case in an
auditory cortex context and should be rejected until (SUCH and SUCH) is
shown to be the case".... when the argument was based on empirical
grounds and was quite sound! People can be so fashion-ridden and flighty
and precious about their 'darlings'....the editor ended up apologising
for the idiot reviewer...who was too stupid to roll with the punches and
was marginalised as a result.
In my case I am absolutely determined to be a "1 trick scientist", like
the guy who discovered the neutrino. I adopt one particular approach to
AGI and *go for it - scientifically*. I either get to be the guy who
actually solved it or I get to be an author who writes about failing to
make my idea work. Either way is OK with me - at least i will have shown
one way NOT to reach AGI, and have been seen to respond to evidence when
I encounter it, not cover my eyes and ears and go "blah blah blah blah".
:-) The thing to be proud of is /authentic science/. Not always easy to
do... but a noble goal. In my case i have a crucial experiment planned,
which will sort out the basis for my new chip design. If that experiment
fails - I will NOT continue with the original idea. I will have bet on a
dud idea. But that's OK.
Oh boy I'm blathering on again. So many words!~ Sorry! .... better
go...I think you get my drift.
cheers
colin hales
-------------------------------------------
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=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
