Scratch my statement about it being useless :) It's useful, but no where near sufficient for AGI like understanding.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:58 PM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote: > notice how you said *context* of the conversation. The context is the real > world, and is completely missing. You cannot "model" human communication > using text alone. The responses you would get back would be exactly like > eliza. Sure, it might be pleasing to someone that has never seen AI before, > but its certainly not answering any questions. > > This reminds me of the Bing search engine commercials where people ask a > question and get responses that include the words they asked about, but in a > completely wrong context. > > Predicting the next word and understanding the question are completely > different and cannot be solved the same way. In fact, predicting the next > word is altogether useless (at least by itself) in my opinion. > > Dave > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com>wrote: > >> Answering questions is the same problem as predicting the answers. If you >> can compute p(A|Q) where Q is the question (and previous context of the >> conversation) and A is the answer, then you can also choose an answer A from >> the same distribution. If p() correctly models human communication, then the >> response would be indistinguishable from a human in a Turing test. >> >> >> -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >> *Sent:* Tue, June 29, 2010 3:43:53 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >> >> the purpose of text is to convey something. It has to be interpreted. who >> cares about predicting the next word if you can't interpret a single bit of >> it. >> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> People do not predict the next words of text. We anticipate it, but when >>> something different shows up, we accept it if it is *explanatory*. Using >>> compression like algorithms though will never be able to do this type of >>> explanatory reasoning, which is required to disambiguate text. It is >>> certainly not sufficient for learning language, which is not at all about >>> predicting text. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Experiments in text compression show that text alone is sufficient for >>>> learning to predict text. >>>> >>>> I realize that for a machine to pass the Turing test, it needs a visual >>>> model of the world. Otherwise it would have a hard time with questions like >>>> "what word in this ernai1 did I spell wrong"? Obviously the easiest way to >>>> build a visual model is with vision, but it is not the only way. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >>>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>>> *Sent:* Tue, June 29, 2010 3:22:33 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >>>> >>>> I certainly agree that the techniques and explanation generating >>>> algorithms for learning language are hard coded into our brain. But, those >>>> techniques alone are not sufficient to learn language in the absence of >>>> sensory perception or some other way of getting the data required. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> David Jones wrote: >>>>> > The knowledge for interpreting language though should not be >>>>> pre-programmed. >>>>> >>>>> I think that human brains are wired differently than other animals to >>>>> make language learning easier. We have not been successful in training >>>>> other >>>>> primates to speak, even though they have all the right anatomy such as >>>>> vocal >>>>> chords, tongue, lips, etc. When primates have been taught sign language, >>>>> they have not successfully mastered forming sentences. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >>>>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>>>> *Sent:* Tue, June 29, 2010 3:00:09 PM >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >>>>> >>>>> The point I was trying to make is that an approach that tries to >>>>> interpret language just using language itself and without sufficient >>>>> information or the means to realistically acquire that information, >>>>> *should* >>>>> fail. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, an approach that tries to interpret vision with >>>>> minimal upfront knowledge needs *should* succeed because the knowledge >>>>> required to automatically learn to interpret images is amenable to >>>>> preprogramming. In addition, such knowledge must be pre-programmed. The >>>>> knowledge for interpreting language though should not be pre-programmed. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> David Jones wrote: >>>>>> > I wish people understood this better. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, animals can be intelligent even though they lack language >>>>>> because they can see. True, but an AGI with language skills is more >>>>>> useful >>>>>> than one without. >>>>>> >>>>>> And yes, I realize that language, vision, motor skills, hearing, and >>>>>> all the other senses and outputs are tied together. Skills in any area >>>>>> make >>>>>> learning the others easier. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tue, June 29, 2010 1:42:51 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike, >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS is the flawed reasoning that causes people to ignore vision as >>>>>> the right way to create AGI. And I've finally come up with a great way to >>>>>> show you how wrong this reasoning is. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll give you an extremely obvious argument that proves that vision >>>>>> requires much less knowledge to interpret than language does. Let's say >>>>>> that >>>>>> you have never been to egypt, you have never seen some particular movie >>>>>> before. But if you see the movie, an alien landscape, an alien world, a >>>>>> new >>>>>> place or any such new visual experience, you can immediately interpret >>>>>> it in >>>>>> terms of spacial, temporal, compositional and other relationships. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, go to egypt and listen to them speak. Can you interpret it? Nope. >>>>>> Why?! Because you don't have enough information. The language itself does >>>>>> not contain any information to help you interpret it. We do not learn >>>>>> language simply by listening. We learn based on evidence from how the >>>>>> language is used and how it occurs in our daily lives. Without that >>>>>> experience, you cannot interpret it. >>>>>> >>>>>> But with vision, you do not need extra knowledge to interpret a new >>>>>> situation. You can recognize completely new objects without any training >>>>>> except for simply observing them in their natural state. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wish people understood this better. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Mike Tintner < >>>>>> tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just off the cuff here - isn't the same true for vision? You can't >>>>>>> learn vision from vision. Just as all NLP has no connection with the >>>>>>> real >>>>>>> world, and totally relies on the human programmer's knowledge of that >>>>>>> world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your visual program actually relies totally on your visual >>>>>>> "vocabulary" - not its own. That is the inevitable penalty of processing >>>>>>> unreal signals on a computer screen which are not in fact connected to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> real world any more than the verbal/letter signals involved in NLP are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What you need to do - what anyone in your situation with anything >>>>>>> like your asprations needs to do - is to hook up with a roboticist. >>>>>>> Everyone >>>>>>> here should be doing that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:27 PM >>>>>>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can't learn language from language without embedding way more >>>>>>> knowledge than is reasonable. Language does not contain the information >>>>>>> required for its interpretation. There is no *reason* to interpret the >>>>>>> language into any of the infinite possible interpretaions. There is >>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>> to explain but it requires explanatory reasoning to determine the >>>>>>> correct >>>>>>> real world interpretation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2010 10:58 AM, "Matt Mahoney" <matmaho...@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Jones wrote: >>>>>>> > Natural language requires more than the words on the page in the >>>>>>> real world. Of... >>>>>>> Any knowledge that can be demonstrated over a text-only channel (as >>>>>>> in the Turing test) can also be learned over a text-only channel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Cyc also is trying to store knowledge about a super complicated >>>>>>> world in simplistic forms and al... >>>>>>> Cyc failed because it lacks natural language. The vast knowledge >>>>>>> store of the internet is unintelligible to Cyc. The average person >>>>>>> can't use >>>>>>> it because they don't speak Cycl and because they have neither the >>>>>>> ability >>>>>>> nor the patience to translate their implicit thoughts into augmented >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> order logic. Cyc's approach was understandable when they started in 1984 >>>>>>> when they had neither the internet nor the vast computing power that is >>>>>>> required to learn natural language from unlabeled examples like >>>>>>> children do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Vision and other sensory interpretaion, on the other hand, do not >>>>>>> require more info because that... >>>>>>> Without natural language, your system will fail too. You don't have >>>>>>> enough computing power to learn language, much less the million times >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> computing power you need to learn to see. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> To: agi <a...@v2.listbox.c... >>>>>>> *Sent:* Mon, June 28, 2010 9:28:57 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Natural language requires more than the words on the page in the real >>>>>>> world. Of course that didn't ... >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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 >>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>> *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 >>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> *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 >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> *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 >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>> >>> >> *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 >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *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 >> <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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
