The recent Core of AGI exchange has led me IMO to a beautiful conclusion -
to one of the most basic distinctions a real AGI system must make, and also
a simple way of distinguishing between narrow AI and real AGI projects of
any kind.
Consider - you have
a) Dave's square moving across a screen
b) my square moving across a screen
(it was a sort-of-Pong-player line, but let's make it a square box).
How do you distinguish which is animate or inanimate, alive or "dead"? A
very early distinction an infant must make.
Remember inanimate objects move (or are moved) too, and in this case you can
only see them in motion, - so the "self-starting" distinction is out.
Well, obviously, if Dave's moves *regularly* (like a train or falling
stone), it's probably inanimate. If mine moves *irregularly*, - if it stops
and starts, or slows and accelerates in irregular, even if only subtly jerky
fashion (like one operated by a human Pong player) - it's probably
inanimate. That's what distinguishes the movement of life.
Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern*
ways, and *predictably.*
Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork* ways,
and *unbleedingpredictably* .
(IOW Newton is wrong - the laws of physics do not apply to living objects as
whole objects - that's the fundamental way we know they are living, because
they visibly don't obey those laws - they don't normally move regularly like
a stone falling to earth, or thrown through the sky. And we're v. impressed
when humans like dancers or soldiers do manage by dint of great effort and
practice to move with a high though not perfect degree of regularity and
smoothness).
And now we have such a simple way of distinguishing between narrow AI and
real AGI projects. Look at their objects. The "really narrow AI-er" will
always do what Dave did - pick objects that are shaped regularly, move and
behave regularly, are patterned, and predictable. Even at as simple a level
as plain old squares.
And he'll pick closed, definable sets of objects.
He'll do this instinctively, because he doesn't know any different - that's
his intellectual, logicomathematical world - one of objects that no matter
how complex (like fractals) are always regular in shape, movement,
patterned, come in definable sets and are predictable.
That's why Ben wants to see the world only as structured and patterned even
though there's so much obvious mess and craziness everywhere - he's never
known any different intellectually.
That's why Michael can't bear to even contemplate a world in which things
and people behave unpredictably. (And Ben can't bear to contemplate a
stockmarket that is obviously unpredictable).
If he were an artist his instincts would be the opposite - he'd go for the
irregular and patchy and unpredictable twists. If he were drawing a box
going across a screen, he would have to put some irregularity in
omewhere - put in some fits and starts and stops - there's always an
irregular twist in the picture or the tale. An artist has to put some
surprise and life into what he does -
If he were drawing or photographing a picture of any real world scene, it
would be full of irregularity - irregular objects moving in irregular ways
in irregular groupings. (One reason why so many AGI-ers can't bear to deal
with visual images of any detail. ).
Even at one extreme if he were an abstract artist using regular objects like
Albers, he'd still put them together in somewhat irregular ways, or
irregular combinations of colours.
AGI is about dealing first and foremost with the real world, navigating real
world scenes - streets, fields, rooms - manipulating real world objects,
visually classifying real world objects, talking to real world people,
dealing with real world texts, pictures, photographs and movies)
Not the artificial worlds of factories, and labs, and processing plants, and
the artificial abstract objects and spaces of logic and maths.
The real world always contains a great deal of irregularly shaped objects,
(like rocks and faces), moving and talking and signifying irregularly, in
open, undefinable groups/sets, in patchworks - and overall behaving
unpredictably (and surprisingly).
That's what real AGI projects will have to deal with.
("objects" here can be taken universally like "things" - to denote not just
physical objects but sign objects too like numbers, and words and pictures,
and ideas).
P.S. Summary: The litmus, "OBJECT TRUTH TEST" of your AGI project - are the
objects regular/irregular in
1) Form - Shape ( brick vs rock)
2) Form - Structure ( pattern vs patchwork)
3) Movement/ Behaviour (incl. Signification)
4) Groups/Sets - Closed Defined Sets vs Open Undefinable (or only partly
definable) Sets
5) Predictable/Unpredictable
Or to put it another way, could this be part of the real, imperfect world
rather than an artificial, perfect world?
I've only come across one project that even begins to pass the test.
(And no, Dave, problems about regular, predictable objects will never "scale
up" to problems about irregular, unpredictable ones. Whatever you do has to
be designed for the latter, from the bottom up).
-------------------------------------------
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=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
