Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC. The training sets can be generated simply by playing the agents against each other using random moves and letting the agents know if it passed or failed as a feedback mechanism.
Cheers, Deepak On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps > to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that > people figure it out. > > The question is how to do that. We know that it is possible. For example, I > could write a chess program that I could not win against. I could write the > program in such a way that it learns to improve its game by playing against > itself or other opponents. I could write it in such a way that initially > does not know the rules for chess, but instead learns the rules by being > given examples of legal and illegal moves. > > What we have not yet been able to do is scale this type of learning and > problem solving up to general, human level intelligence. I believe it is > possible, but it will require lots of training data and lots of computing > power. It is not something you could do on a PC, and it won't be cheap. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI > > The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the > computer's or any agent's thinking about a problem. Programs/Turing machines > are only one way of structuring thinking/problemsolving - by, among other > things, giving the computer a method/process of solution. There is an > alternative way of structuring a computer's thinking, which incl., among > other things, not giving it a method/ process of solution, but making it > rather than a human programmer do the real problemsolving. More of that > another time. > > *From:* Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:38 AM > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI > > Creativity is the good feeling you get when you discover a clever > solution to a hard problem without knowing the process you used to discover > it. > > I think a computer could do that. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 2:08:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI > > Yes that's what people do, but it's not what programmed computers do. > > The useful formulation that emerges here is: > > narrow AI (and in fact all rational) problems have *a method of solution* > (to be equated with "general" method) - and are programmable (a program is > a method of solution) > > AGI (and in fact all creative) problems do NOT have *a method of solution* > (in the general sense) - rather a one.off *way of solving the problem* has > to be improvised each time. > > AGI/creative problems do not in fact have a method of solution, period. > There is no (general) method of solving either the toy box or the > build-a-rock-wall problem - one essential feature which makes them AGI. > > You can learn, as you indicate, from *parts* of any given AGI/creative > solution, and apply the lessons to future problems - and indeed with > practice, should improve at solving any given kind of AGI/creative problem. > But you can never apply a *whole* solution/way to further problems. > > P.S. One should add that in terms of computers, we are talking here of > *complete, step-by-step* methods of solution. > > > *From:* rob levy <r.p.l...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:09 PM > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI > > > >> And are you happy with: >> >> AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply >> to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at >> > least not in their totality) >> >> > > Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to > recognize where past solutions can be generalized and where past solutions > can be varied and reused is a detail of how intelligence works that is > likely to be universal. > > > >> vs >> >> narrow AI is about applying pre-existing *general* methods of >> problemsolving (applicable to whole classes of problems)? >> >> >> >> *From:* rob levy <r.p.l...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM >> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >> >> Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH >> (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So >> I would rephrase "solving any problem" as being able to come up with >> reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able >> to do). >> >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner >> <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: >> >>> Whaddya mean by "solve the problem of how to solve problems"? Develop a >>> universal approach to solving any problem? Or find a method of solving a >>> class of problems? Or what? >>> >>> *From:* rob levy <r.p.l...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM >>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >>> >>> >>>> However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain >>>> what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there >>>> are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to "solve the >>> problem of how to solve problems" in new and changing environments. I don't >>> think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to >>> be the goal of AGI as I understand it. >>> >>> Rob >>> *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> > -- cheers, Deepak ------------------------------------------- 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
