What about DESTIN? Jim has talked about video. Could DESTIN be generalized to 3 dimensions, or even n dimensions?
- Ian Parker On 9 August 2010 07:16, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > Actually this is quite critical. > > > > Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the > supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the > mind processes it. > > > > It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I > would go for though... > > > > John > > > > *From:* Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] > *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM > *To:* agi > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 > > > > You're waffling. > > > > You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you. > > > > Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any > basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two. > > > > You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do > you? Yes/no. > > > > No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through > and through. > > > > > > > > *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM > > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 > > > > Mike, > > We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat > previous arguments to you. > > You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler > concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your > example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because > *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a > certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? > > The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a > recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite > funny. > > Dave > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: > > Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled > as if everything was made up of matter > > > > And "matter" is... ? Huh? > > > > You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you > will pay a heavy price in lost time. > > > > What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units" wh. you are > claiming to exist? > > > > You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty > fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be > expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern > for "chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to > understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* > schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. > > > > You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had > never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming > that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you > haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these > basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a > few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. > > > > Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call > "fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the > world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a > freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the > box/brick/"fundamental unit". > > > > *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM > > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 > > > > Mike, > > I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to > make sure these problems are addressed. > > See more comments below. > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: > > 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make > clear why your approach is one and not the other > > > I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI > 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to > handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without > requiring a change in design. > > > > > 2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim > they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and > AGI learning? > > > The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you > can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it > needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and > analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to. > > > > > 3) "Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about > and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what > makes it general!" > > > > Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. > > > You are only right that I haven't demonstrated it. I will address this in > the next paper and continue adding details over the next few drafts. > > As a simple argument against your counter argument... > > If that were true that we could not understand the world using a limited > set of rules or concepts, how is it that a human baby, with a design that is > predetermined to interact with the world a certain way by its DNA, is able > to deal with unforeseen things that were not preprogrammed? That’s right, > the baby was born with a set of rules that robustly allows it to deal with > the unforeseen. It has a limited set of rules used to learn. That is > equivalent to a limited set of “concepts” (i.e. rules) that would allow a > computer to deal with the unforeseen. > > > Interesting philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers' > fantasies of "take-off". You can compare it to the idea that all science can > be reduced to physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But > it's demonstrably not so. > > > No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if > everything was made up of matter. Oh, I forgot, that is the case :) It is a > limited set of "concepts", yet it can create everything we know. > > > > > You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the > NEW - the unfamiliar, that wh. cannot be broken down into familiar > categories, - and then find ways of dealing with it ad hoc. > > > You don't seem to understand that even the things you think cannot be > broken down, can be. > > > Dave > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> | > Modify Your Subscription <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > > *agi | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > * > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > > *agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/>* > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > > *agi | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > * > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> > *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
