Re: Cognitive Science 'unusable' for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...]
Richard, On 6/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using cognitive science as a basis for AGI development, If my fear of paradigm shifting proves to be unfounded, then you may well be right. However, I would be surprised if there weren't a LOT of paradigm shifting going on. It would sure be nice to know rather than taking such a big gamble. Only time will tell for sure. and finding it not only appropriate, but IMO the only viable approach. This really boils down to the meaning of viable. I was asserting that the cost of gathering more information (e.g. with a scanning UV fluorescence microscope) was probably smaller than even a single AGI development project - if you count the true value of your very talented efforts. Hence, this boils down to what your particular skills are, which I presume are in AI programming. On the other hand, I have worked in a major university's neurological surgery lab, wrote programs that interacted with individual neurons, etc., and hence probably feel warmer about working the lab side of this problem. Note that no one has funded neuroscience research to determine information processing functionality - it has ALL been to support research targeting various illnesses. The IP feedback that has come out of those efforts is byproduct and NOT the primary goal. It would take rather little experimentation to make a BIG dent in the many unknowns relating to AGI if that were the primary goal. BTW, neuroscience researchers are in the SAME sort of employment warp as AI people are. All of the research money is now going to genetic research, leaving classical neuroscience research stalled. They aren't even working on new operations that are needed to address various conditions that present operations fail to address. A friend of mine now holds a dual post, as both the chairman of a neurological surgery department and as the director of research at a major university's health sciences complex. He is appalled at where the research money is now being thrown, and how little will probably ever come of it. He must administer this misdirected research, while also administering a surgical team that still must often work in the dark due to inadequate research. He feels helpless in this crazy situation. The good news here is that even a few dollars put into IP-related research would probably return a LOT of useful information for AGI folks. All I was saying is that somehow, someone needs to do this work. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Cognitive Science 'unusable' for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...]
Steve Richfield wrote: Richard, On 6/8/08, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I basically said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive science does not exist. Quite the contrary. My point is that not only does cognitive science fail to provide adequate guidance to develop anything like an AGI, but further, paradigm shifting obfuscates things to the point that this vast wealth of knowledge is unusable for _DEVELOPMENT_. BTW, your comments here suggested that I may not have made my point about paradigm shifting where the external observed functionality may be translated to/from a very different internal representation/functionality. This of course leads observations of cognition efforts astray, by derailing consideration of what might actually be happening. However, TESTING is quite another matter, as cognitive science provides many touch points for capability to show whether an AGI is working anything at all like us. So yes, cognitive science is alive and well, but probably unusable to provide a basis for AGI development. Steve Richfield What is this foolishness? I am using cognitive science as a basis for AGI development, and finding it not only appropriate, but IMO the only viable approach. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Ben wrote: I think that AGI, right now, could also be analyzed as having four main approaches 1-- logic-based ... including a host of different logic formalisms 2-- neural net/ brain simulation based ... including some biologically quasi-realistic systems and some systems that are more formal and abstract 3-- integrative ... which itself is a very broad category with a lot of heterogeneity ... including e.g. systems composed of wholly distinct black boxes versus systems that have intricate real-time feedbacks between different components' innards 4-- miscellaneous ... evolutionary learning, etc. etc. It's hardly a herd, it's more of a chaos ;-p -- Ben --- I think you have to include complexity. Although complexity problems can be / should be seen as an issue relevant to all AGI paradigms, the significance of the problem makes it a primary concern to me. I would say that I am interested in the problems of complexity and integration of concepts. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Jim, Ben, et al, On 6/10/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben wrote: I think that AGI, right now, The thing that stumbled me when I first got here, is understanding just what is meant here by AGI. It is NOT the process that goes on behind our eyeballs, as that is clearly an emergent property that can result in VERY different functioning and brain mappings between individuals. Neither is it anything that works because of the instant rejection of Dr. Eliza's methods. No, it is something in between these two extremes, something like programs that learn to behave intelligently. Perhaps Ben or someone else could propose a better brief definition that would be widely accepted here. could also be analyzed as having four main approaches 1-- logic-based ... including a host of different logic formalisms Mike and I have been challenging the overall feasibility of these approaches, which is what started this thread. Hence, let's avoid thread recursion. 2-- neural net/ brain simulation based ... including some biologically quasi-realistic systems and some systems that are more formal and abstract 3-- integrative ... which itself is a very broad category with a lot of heterogeneity ... including e.g. systems composed of wholly distinct black boxes versus systems that have intricate real-time feedbacks between different components' innards Isn't this just #1 expanded to cover some obvious shortcomings? 4-- miscellaneous ... evolutionary learning, etc. etc. 5.- Carefully analyzed and simply programmed approaches to accomplish tasks that would seem to require intelligence, but (by most definitions) are not intelligent. Chess playing programs and Dr. Eliza fall into this bin. Apparently, Ben is intentionally excluding this bin from consideration. The MAJOR importance of this particular bin is that other forms of AGI are as worthless doing this sort of work as people are playing Chess, because simple programs can easily do this sort of work RIGHT NOW, without further development. Hence, many of AGI's stated hopes and dreams need to be retargeted to doing things that can NOT be done by simple programs. It's hardly a herd, it's more of a chaos ;-p As we are discovering here, herds can always be subdivided into clusters. But then, we start arguing about what should be clustered together. -- Ben --- I think you have to include complexity. Although complexity problems can be / should be seen as an issue relevant to all AGI paradigms, the significance of the problem makes it a primary concern to me. I would say that I am interested in the problems of complexity and integration of concepts. It is unclear how Dr. Eliza's methods fail to do this, except that people must code the machine knowledge rather than having the program learn it from observation/experience. Note that Dr. Eliza appears to be able to handle the hand-coded machine knowledge of the entire world. Note that the big problems in the world are generally NOT intelligence limited, but rather appear to be approach limited. To illustrate, one man, Saddam Hussein, did something in Iraq that the entire US military backed by the nearly limitless wealth of the US government can't even come close to doing - keep the peace, albeit by leaving a few dead bodies in his wake. The limitation in intelligence was in failing to see that his methods were *necessary* to keep the peace in that particular heterogeneous society, so our only rational choices were to either leave him alone to run Iraq, or invade and adopt his methods. Doing neither, things can only get worse, and Worse, and WORSE... Now that we have killed him, we have no apparent way back out. Alternatively, there are now programs (mostly hidden inside the CIA) to recognize patterns in apparently random messages, used as the first step in breaking secret codes. Perhaps you could better define what you mean by complexity to obviate my questions? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Bob, On 6/8/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/8 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. I entirely agree with this response. To anyone who does believe that they're ahead of the game and being ignored my advice would be to produce some working system which can be demonstrated - even if it's fairly minimalist. It's much harder to people to ignore a working demo than mere philosophical debate or speculation. Dr. Eliza does that rather well, showing how a really simple program can deliver part of what AGI promises in the long distant future, with a good user interface and no dangers of it taking over the world. Further, it better delimits what an AGI must be able to do to be valuable, as duplicating the function of a simple program should NOT be on the list of hoped-for capabilities. The BIG lesson of Dr. Eliza is that it hinges on one particular fragment of machine knowledge that does NOT appear on Internet postings, casual conversations, or even direct experience. That fragment is what people typically say to demonstrate their ignorance of an issue. Every expert knows these utterances, but they rarely if ever appear in text. Give authors suitable blanks to fill in, and Dr. Eliza comes to life. Without that level of information, I seriously doubt the future of any AGI system. In short, I have produced my demo and presented it to International audiences at AI conferences, and hereby return this particular ball to your court. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Matthias, On 6/8/08, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. --- Philosophers, biologists, cognitive scientists worked many many years to model the algorithms in the brain but only with success in some details. The overall model of human GI still does not exist. Should we really begin programming AGI only after fully understanding? I was attempting to make two points that were apparently missed: 1. A machine (e.g. a scanning UV fluorescence microscope) could be made for about the cost of a single supercomputer, that would provide enormous clues if not outright answers to many of the presently outstanding questions. The lack of funding for THAT shows a general lack of interest in this field by anyone with money. 2. Hence, with a lack of monetary interest and a lack of a good story as to why this should succeed, there would seem to be little prospect for success, because even a completely successful AGI program would then need money to develop its marketing and distribution. That Dr. Eliza has achieved some of the more valuable goals, but has yet to raise any money, shows that the world is NOT looking to beat a path to this better mousetrap. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Ben, On 6/8/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson ... to whose satisfaction? Here on this forum, there are only two groups of judges: 1. The people who are actually writing the code, and 2. People who might fund the above. Note that *I* am NOT on this list. However, I believe that it is important for you to be able to speak to objections, even though your words may not dissuade the objectors, and to produce some sort of documentation of these to throw at experts that future investors might bring in. As I have mentioned on prior postings, it IS possible to overcome contrary opinions by highly credentialed experts, but you absolutely MUST have your act together to have a chance at this. Note that when faced with two people, one of whom says that something is impossible, and the other saying that he can do it, that (having been in this spot myself on several occasions) I almost always bet on the guy who says that he can do it. That having been said, just what are my objections here?! They are that you haven't adequately explained (to me) just how you are going to blow past the obvious challenges that lie ahead, which strongly suggests that you haven't adequately considered them. It is that careful consideration of challenges that separates the angels from the fools who rush in. Given significant evidence of that careful consideration, I would be inclined to bet on your success, even though I might disagree with some of your evaluations. Yes, I heard you explain how experimentation is still needed to figure out what approaches might work, and which approaches should be consigned to the bit bucket. That of course is research, and the vast majority of research leads nowhere. Planned experimental research is NOT a substitute for careful consideration of stated challenges, unless coupled with some sort of explanation as to how the research should provide a path past those challenges (the scientific method that tests theories). Hence, I was just looking for some hopeful words to describe a potential success path, and not any sort of proof of future success I completely agree that words (e.g. mine) are no substitute for running code, but neither is running code any substitute for explanatory words, unless of course the code is to only exist on the author's computer. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Richard, On 6/8/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I basically said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive science does not exist. Quite the contrary. My point is that not only does cognitive science fail to provide adequate guidance to develop anything like an AGI, but further, paradigm shifting obfuscates things to the point that this vast wealth of knowledge is unusable for *DEVELOPMENT*. BTW, your comments here suggested that I may not have made my point about paradigm shifting where the external observed functionality may be translated to/from a very different internal representation/functionality. This of course leads observations of cognition efforts astray, by derailing consideration of what might actually be happening. However, TESTING is quite another matter, as cognitive science provides many touch points for capability to show whether an AGI is working anything at all like us. So yes, cognitive science is alive and well, but probably unusable to provide a basis for AGI development. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
- Original Message From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3-- integrative ... which itself is a very broad category with a lot of heterogeneity ... including e.g. systems composed of wholly distinct black boxes versus systems that have intricate real-time feedbacks between different components' innards Isn't this just #1 expanded to cover some obvious shortcomings? --- No. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Hi Steve, I'm thinking about the Texai bootstrap dialog system, and in particular about adding grammar rules and vocabulary for the utterance Compile a class. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:28:07 AM Subject: [agi] Pearls Before Swine... Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Hi Steve, I'm thinking about the solution to the Friendliness problem, and in particular desperately need to finish my paper on it for the AAAI Fall Symposium that is due by next Sunday. What I would suggest, however, is that quickly formatted e-mail postings are exactly the wrong method for addressing high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. Part of the problem is that quick e-mails always (must) assume agreement on foundational issues and/or (must) assume that the reader will agree with (or take your word for) many points. A much better way of getting your point across (and proving that it is a valid point) is to write yourself a nice six-to-twelve page publishable-quality scientific paper. Doing so will be difficult and time-consuming but ultimately far more worthwhile than just throwing something out to be consumed and probably ultimately ignored by a mailing list of bigots. Mark P.S. Mike Tintner is was ahead of everyone in no response postings not because he challenges the herd mentality but because he has no clue of what he is talking about and endlessly repeats variations of the same point *without* successfully proving it's foundations, successfully answering criticism, or even extending his point into something that is worthwhile and usable as opposed to just random speculation. Also, bleating about the fact that you're not being answered because you're challenging the herd, even if true, is only counter-productive and whiny and more likely to get you ignored -- especially if you do it in all caps. Crocker's rules as always (with the waste of my time exception :-) - Original Message - From: Stephen Reed To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine... Hi Steve, I'm thinking about the Texai bootstrap dialog system, and in particular about adding grammar rules and vocabulary for the utterance Compile a class. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:28:07 AM Subject: [agi] Pearls Before Swine... Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve, Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. And we have already gotten tired of arguing those same points, back in our undergrad or grad school days (or analogous time periods for those who didn't get PhD's...). The points you guys are making are not as original as you seem to think. And the reason we don't take time to argue against them in detail is that it's boring and we're busy. These points have already been extensively argued by others in the published literature over the past few decades; but I also don't want to take the time to dig up citations for you I'm not saying that I have an argument in favor of my approach, that would convince a skeptic. I know I don't. The only argument that will convince a skeptic is to complete a functional human-level AGI. And even that won't be enough for some skeptics. (Maybe a fully rigorous formal theory of how to create an AGI with a certain intelligence level given specific resource constraints would convince some skeptics, but not many I suppose -- discussions would devolve into quibbles over the definition of intelligence, and other particular mathematical assumptions of the sort that any formal analysis must make.) OK. Back to work on the OpenCog Prime documentation, which IMO is a better use of my time than endlessly repeating the arguments from philosophy-of-mind and cog-sci class on an email list ;-) Sorry if my tone seems obnoxious, but I didn't find your description of those of us working on actual AI systems as having a herd mentality very appealing. The truth is, one of the big problems in the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has **their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed independently rather than compromising with others on various design points. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the different systems out there vary wildly in many respects. -- Ben G On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve, A quick response for now. I was going to reply to an earlier post of yours, in which you made the most important point for me: The difficulties in proceeding in both neuroscience and AI/AGI is NOT a lack of technology or clever people to apply it, but is rather a lack of understanding of the real world and how to effectively interact within it. I had already had a go at expounding this,and I think I've got a better way now. (It's actually v. important to philosophically conceptualise it precisely - and you're not quite managing it any more than I was). I think it's this: everyone in AGI is almost exclusively interested in general intelligence as INFORMATION PROCESSING - as opposed to KNOWLEDGE (about the world). IOW everyone is mainly interested in the problems of storing and manipulating information via hardware and software, and what logic/maths/programs etc to use., which is of course, what they know all about, and is essential. People aren't interested in, though, in what is also essential: the problems of acquiring knowledge about the world. For them knowledge is all data. Different kinds and forms of knowledge? Dude, they're just bandwidth. To draw an analogy, it's like being interested only in developing a wonderfully powerful set of cameras, and not in photography. To be a photographer, you have to know about your subject as well as your machine and its s/ware. You have to know, say, human beings and how their faces change and express emotions, if you want to be a portrait photographer - or animals and their behaviour if you want to photograph them in the wild. You have to know the problems of acquiring knowledge re particular parts of the world. And the same is true of AGI. This lack of interest in knowledge is at the basis of the fantasy of a superAGI taking off. That's an entirely mathematical fantasy derived from thinking purely about the information processing side of things. Computers are getting more and more powerful; as my computer starts to build a body of data, it will build faster and faster, get recursively better and better... and whoops.. it'll take over the world. On an information processing basis, that seems reasonable - for computers definitely will keep increasing amazingly in processing power From a knowledge POV, though, it's an absurd fantasy. As soon as you think in terms of acquiring knowledge and solving problems about any particular area of the world, you realise that knowledge doesn't simply expand mathematically. Everywhere you look, you find messy problems and massive areas of ignorance, that can only be solved creatively. The brain - all this neuroscience and we still don't know the engram principle. The body - endless diseases we haven't solved. Women - what the heck *do* they want? And so on and on. And unfortunately the solution of these problems - creativity - doesn't run to mathematical timetables. If only.. And as soon as you think in knowledge as opposed to information terms, you realise that current AGI is based on an additional absurd fantasy - the bookroom fantasy. When you think just in terms of data, well, it seems reasonable that you can simply mine the texts of the world, esp. via the Net, and supplement that with instruction from human teachers, and become ever more superintelligent. You or your agent, says the fantasy, can just sit in a room with your books and net connection, and perhaps a few visitors, and learn all about the world. Apparently, you don't actually have to go out in the world at all - you can learn all about Kazakhstan without ever having been there, or sex without ever having had sex, or sports without ever having played them, or diseases without ever having been in surgeries and hospitals and sickrooms etc. etc. When you think in terms of knowledge, you quickly realise that to know and solve problems about the world or any part, you need not just information in texts, you need EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATION, INVESTIGATION, EXPERIMENT, and INTERACTION with the subject, and maybe a stiff drink. A computer sitting in a room, or a billion computers in a billion rooms, are not going to solve the problems of the world in magnificent isolation. (They'll help an awful lot, but they won't finally solve the problems). Just thinking in terms of science as one branch of knowlege, and how science solves problems, would tell you this. Science without in-the-lab experiment and in-the-field observation is unthinkable. The bookroom fantasy is truly absurd if you think about it in knowledge terms, but AGI-ers just aren't thinking in those terms. You, Steve, it seems to me, are unusual here because you have had to think very extensively in terms of knowledge - and a particular subject area, i.e. health, and so you're acutely and unusually aware of the problems of acquiring knowledge there rather than just data. It has to be said, that it's v. hard to think about intelligence from
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
The truth is, one of the big problems in the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has **their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed independently rather than compromising with others on various design points. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the different systems out there vary wildly in many respects. -- Ben G To analogize to another field, in his book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Lee Smolin identifies three current approaches to quantum gravity: 1-- string theory 2-- loop quantum gravity 3-- miscellaneous mathematical approaches based on various odd formalisms and ideas I think that AGI, right now, could also be analyzed as having four main approaches 1-- logic-based ... including a host of different logic formalisms 2-- neural net/ brain simulation based ... including some biologically quasi-realistic systems and some systems that are more formal and abstract 3-- integrative ... which itself is a very broad category with a lot of heterogeneity ... including e.g. systems composed of wholly distinct black boxes versus systems that have intricate real-time feedbacks between different components' innards 4-- miscellaneous ... evolutionary learning, etc. etc. It's hardly a herd, it's more of a chaos ;-p -- Ben G --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
2008/6/8 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. I entirely agree with this response. To anyone who does believe that they're ahead of the game and being ignored my advice would be to produce some working system which can be demonstrated - even if it's fairly minimalist. It's much harder to people to ignore a working demo than mere philosophical debate or speculation. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. ATM/Mentifex --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve Richfield asked: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? We're thinking Don't feed the Trolls! _ agi | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscriptionhttp://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Ben and Mike, WOW, two WONDERFUL in-your-face postings that CLEARLY delimit a central AGI issue. Since my original posting ended with a question and Ben took a shot at the question, I would like to know a little more... On 6/8/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. And we have already gotten tired of arguing those same points, back in our undergrad or grad school days (or analogous time periods for those who didn't get PhD's...). I think that the underlying problem here is that Mike and I haven't yet really heard the other side. Since you and others are presumably looking for financing, you too will need these arguments encapsulated in some sort of read this form you can throw at disbelievers. If your statement above is indeed true (and I believe that it is), then you ARE correct that we shouldn't be arguing this here. You should simply throw an article at us to make your point. If this article doesn't yet exist, then you MUST create it if you are ever to have ANY chance at funding. You might want to invite Mike and I to wring it out before you publish it. The points you guys are making are not as original as you seem to think. I don't think we made any claim of originality, except perhaps in expression. And the reason we don't take time to argue against them in detail is that it's boring and we're busy. These points have already been extensively argued by others in the published literature over the past few decades; but I also don't want to take the time to dig up citations for you You need just ONE GOOD citation on which to hang your future hopes at funding. More than that and your funding will disappear in a pile of paper. I'm not saying that I have an argument in favor of my approach, that would convince a skeptic. I have actually gotten funding for a project where the expert was a skeptic who advised against funding! My argument went something like Note the lack of any technical objections in his report. What he is REALLY saying is that HE (the Director of an EE Department at a major university) cannot do this, and I agree. However, my team has a fresh approach and the energy to succeed that he simply does not have. I know I don't. The only argument that will convince a skeptic is to complete a functional human-level AGI. You are planning to first succeed, and then go for funding?! This sounds suicidal. And even that won't be enough for some skeptics. (Maybe a fully rigorous formal theory of how to create an AGI with a certain intelligence level given specific resource constraints would convince some skeptics, but not many I suppose -- discussions would devolve into quibbles over the definition of intelligence, and other particular mathematical assumptions of the sort that any formal analysis must make.) I suspect that whatever you write will be good for something, even though it may fall far short of AGI. OK. Back to work on the OpenCog Prime documentation, which IMO is a better use of my time than endlessly repeating the arguments from philosophy-of-mind and cog-sci class on an email list ;-) Again, please don't repeat anything here, just show us what you would obviously have to show someone considering funding your efforts. Sorry if my tone seems obnoxious, but I didn't find your description of those of us working on actual AI systems as having a herd mentality very appealing. Oops, sorry about that. I meant no disrespect. The truth is, one of the big problems in the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has **their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed independently rather than compromising with others on various design points. YES. The lack of usable software interfaces does indeed cut deeply. A good proposal here could go a LONG way to propelling the AGI programming field to success. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the different systems out there vary wildly in many respects. While the details vary widely, Mike and I were addressing the very concept of writing code to perform functions (e.g. thinking) that apparently develop on their own as emergent properties, and in the process foreclosing on many opportunities, e.g. developing in variant ways to address problems in new paradigms. Direct programming would seem to lead to lesser rather than greater intelligence. Am I correct that this is indeed a central thread in all of the different systems that you had in mind? Note in passing that simulations can sometimes be compiled into executable code. Now that the bidirectional equivalence of NN and fuzzy logic approaches has been established, and people often program fuzzy logic methods directly into C/C++ code (especially economic models), there is now a (contorted) path to
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Gary Miller writes: We're thinking Don't feed the Trolls! Yeah, typical trollish behavior -- upon failing to stir the pot with one approcah, start adding blanket insults. I put Steve Richfield in my killfile a week ago or so, but I went back to the archive to read the message in question. The reason it got no response is that it is incoherent. Seriously, I couldn't even understand the point of it. Something about dreams and brains being wired completely different and some thumbnail calculations which are not included but apparently conclude that AGI will need the entire population of the earth for software maintenance... um, that's just weird rambling crackpottery. It is so far away from any sort of AGI nuts and bolts that it cannot even be parsed. There are people who do not believe they are crackpots (but are certainly perceived that way) who then transform into trolls spouting vague blanket insults and whining about being ignored. That type of unsupported fringe wackiness is tolerated because, frankly, the whole field is fringe to most people. When it turns into vague attacks, blanket condemnation, and insults (a la Tintner and now Richfield) it simply isn't worth reading any more. For others in danger of spiraling down the same drain, I recommend: * Be cordial. Note: condescending is not cordial. * Be specific and concise. Stick to one point. * Do not refer to decades-old universally ignored papers about character recognition as if they are AI-shaping revolutions. * Do not drop names from some hazy good old days * Attempt to limit rambling off-topic insights into marginally related material * If you are going to criticize instead of putting forward positive ideas (why you'd bother criticizing this field is beyond me, but if you must): criticize specific things, not the herd or all of you researchers or the field of AGI... as Ben pointed out earlier, no two people in this area agree on much of anything and they cannot be lumped together. Criticizing specific things means actually reading and attempting to understand the published works of AGI researchers -- the test for whether you belong here is whether you are willing and able to actually do that. Mr. Richfield may find a more receptive audience here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
From: A. T. Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
While the details vary widely, Mike and I were addressing the very concept of writing code to perform functions (e.g. thinking) that apparently develop on their own as emergent properties, and in the process foreclosing on many opportunities, e.g. developing in variant ways to address problems in new paradigms. Direct programming would seem to lead to lesser rather than greater intelligence. Am I correct that this is indeed a central thread in all of the different systems that you had in mind? Different AGI systems rely on emergence to varying extents ... No one knows which brain functions rely on emergence to which extents ... we're still puzzling this out even in relatively well-understood brain regions like visual cortex. (Feedforward connections in visual cortex are sorta well understood, but feedback connections, which is where emergence might play in, are very poorly understood as yet.) For instance, the presence of a hierarchy of progressively more abstract feature detectors in visual cortex clearly does NOT emerge in a strong sense... it may emerge during fetal and early-childhood neural self-organization, but in a way that is carefully genetically preprogrammed. But, the neural structures that carry out object-recognition may well emerge as a result of complex nonlinear dynamics involving learning in both the feedback and feedforward connections... so my point is, the brain is a mix of wired-in and emergent stuff, and we don't know where the boundary lies... as with vision, similarly e.g. for language understanding. Read Jackendoff's book Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. and the multi-author book mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=0262050528 for thoughtful treatments of the subtle relations btw programmed-in and learned aspects of human intelligence ... much of the discussion pertains implicitly to emergence too, though they don't use that word much ... because emergence is key to learning... In the Novamente design we've made some particular choices about what to build in versus what to allow to emerge. But, for sure, the notion of emergence from complex self-organizing dynamics has been a key part of our thinking in making the design... Neural net AGI approaches tend to leave more to emerge, whereas logic based approaches tend to leave less... but that's just a broad generalization In short there is a huge spectrum of choices in the AGi field regarding what to build in versus what to allow to emerge ... not a herd mentality at all... -- Ben --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Ben: No one knows which brain functions rely on emergence to which extents ... we're still puzzling this out even in relatively well-understood brain regions like visual cortex. ... But, the neural structures that carry out object-recognition may well emerge as a result of complex nonlinear dynamics involving learning in both the feedback and feedforward connections... Ben, Why, when you see this: http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=wtmjsxmmyhlthumb=4 do you also see something like this: http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300V/20061110/Black-Swan-134875.jpg Wtf is he on about? Well, you just effortlessly crossed domains - did some emergence. You solved the central problem of AGI - that underlies metaphor, analogy, creativity, conceptualisation/categorisation, and even, I'd argue, visual object recognition - how to cross domains. How did you solve it? We have a philosophical difference here - your approach is/was to consider ways of information processing - look at different kinds of logic, programming, neural networks and theories of neural processing, (as above) and set up your system on that basis, and hope the answer will emerge. (You also defined all 4 main approaches to AGI purely in terms of info. processing and not in any terms of how they propose to cross domains). My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically, because otherwise you're working blind. Isn't that (he asks from ignorance) what you guys do when called in to help design a company's IT system from scratch - look first at the company's problems in their own terms, before making technical recommendations?(It's OK - I know minds won't meet here :) ). --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
- Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically... -- Instead of talking about what you would do, do it. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
- Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically... -- Instead of talking about what you would do, do it. I mean, work out your ideal way to solve the questions of the mind and share it with us after you've have found some interesting results. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson -- Ben G On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically... -- Instead of talking about what you would do, do it. I mean, work out your ideal way to solve the questions of the mind and share it with us after you've have found some interesting results. Jim Bromer agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve Richfield wrote: Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (*Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) *I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? I was thinking that your previous commentary was a stream of consciousness jumble that made no sense. You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I basically said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive science does not exist. That kind of position makes me want to not take any notice of your comments. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
John G. Rose wrote: [...] Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi Before Goertzel came to be, I am. (a Biblical allusion in Greek :-) http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html The above link is an update on 8 June 2008 of http://www.advogato.org/article/769.html from 2004. My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. In other words, Soc. Sec. will henceforh finance Mentifex AI. Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax. http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/userman.html will remain in JavaScript and not Ajax. As I continue to re-write the User Manual, I will press hard for the adoption of Mentifex AI in high-school classes on artificial intelligence. Arthur T. Murray --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
John G. Rose wrote: Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax. http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/userman.html will remain in JavaScript and not Ajax. Oh OK just checkin'. AJAX is JavaScript BTW, and quite powerful. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
