Thanks for comment. I intend no comment on any other use of the terms, merely
to ensure that my use is reasonable and not confusing. And I hope that you &
others will agree that the conceptual distinction I am making is a fundamental
and essential one in itself.
Whether you agree that it is fundamental to narrow AI vs AGI is another but
also v. fundamental matter.I would maintain that there is no method of any kind
in the whole of rationality - i.e. esp. logic, maths, and computer programming
- that is designed for, or can deal with open sets (per my term) - and that is
of extreme importance.
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:13 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Open Sets vs Closed Sets
The use of the terminology of mathematics is counter intuitive, if, what you
want to say is that mathematical methods are inadequate to describe AGI systems
(or something like that.)
That is what I meant when I said that people don't always mean exactly what
they seem to be saying. You are not really defining a mathematical system, and
you are not trying to conclude that a specific presumption is illogical are
you? Or are you?
There is another problem. We can define sets so we can define things like a
closed set of sets each containing infinities of objects.
However by qualifying your use of concepts like this and then appealing to a
reasonable right to be understood as you intended, you can certainly use this
kind of metaphor.
That's my opinion.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
I'd like opinions on terminology here.
IMO the opposition of closed sets vs open sets is fundamental to the
difference between narrow AI and AGI.
However I notice that these terms have different meanings to mine in maths.
What I mean is:
closed set: contains a definable number and *kinds/species* of objects
open set: contains an undefinable number and *kinds/species* of objects
(what we in casual, careless conversation describe as containing "all kinds of
things"); the rules of an open set allow adding new kinds of things ad
infinitum
Narrow AI's operate in artificial environments containing closed sets of
objects - all of wh. are definable. AGI's operate in real world environments
containing open sets of objects - some of wh. will be definable, and some
definitely not
To engage in any real world activity, like "walking down a street" or
"searching/tidying a room" or "reading a science book/text" is to operate with
open sets of objects, because the next field of operations - the next street
or room or text - may and almost certainly will have unpredictably different
kinds of objects from the last.
Any objections to my use of these terms, or suggestions that I should use
others?
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
