On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YKY, > > As I was saying, before I so rudely interrupted myself - re the narrow AI vs > AGI problem difference: > > *the syllogistic problems of logic - is Aristotle mortal? etc - which you > mainly use as examples - are narrow AI problems, which can be solved > according to precise rules > > however: > > *metacognitive problems - like *which logic should I use for syllogistic > problems, eg PLN/NARS?" - (which also concerns you) - are AGI problems; > there are no rules for solving them, and no definitive solutions, only > possible, temporary resolutions to someone's satisfaction. Those are > problems which you have been discussing and could continue to discuss > interminably. And they are also problems which you will have - and any agent > considering, should have - fear considering, because you can get endlessly > bogged down in them > > [n.b. psychologically, fear comes in many different degrees from panic to > mild wariness] > > similarly > > *is cybersex sex? (another of your problems) - if treated by some artificial > logic with artificial rules, (which might end up saying "yes, approx. 0.60 % > sex"), is a narrow AI problem; however, if treated realistically, > *philosophically*, relying on language, this is an AGI problem, which can be > and may well be considered interminably by real philosophers (and lawyers) > into the next century, (*did* Clinton have sex?) and for which there are > neither definitive rules nor solution . Again fear is, and has to be a part > of considering such problems - how much life do you have to spend on them? > Even the biggest computer brain in the world, the superestAGI will not be > able to solve them definitively, and must be afraid of them > > ditto: > > *Any philosophical problem of definition: what is mind? What is > consciousness? What is intelligence? Again these are infinitely open-ended, > open-means problems, which have atttracted and will continue to attract > interminable consideration. You are, and should be, afraid, of "getting too > deep into them" > > *Any linguistic problem of definition: what does "honour","beautiful," "big" > "small" etc mean? is an AGI problem AFAIK literally any word in the > language is open to endless definition and redefinition and essentially an > AGI problem. By contrast, *what is ETFUBAIL an anagram of?" is a narrow AI > problem - and no need for any fear there. > > *Defining/describing almost anything - "describe YKY or Ben Goertzel; what > kind of guys/ programmers are they?" - are AGI problems. You could consider > them forever. You may be skilled at resolving them quickly, and able to come > up with a brief description, but that again while perhaps "satisfactory" > will never do the subject even remotely perfect justice, and could be > endlessly improved and sophisticated. > > In general, your instinct - and most AGI-ers' instinct - seems to be, > whenever confronted with an AGI problem, to try and reduce it to a narrow > AGI problem - from a real, open-ended/ open-means-and-rules to an > artificial, closed-ended, closed-means-and-rules problem. Then, yes, you > don't need fear and other emotions, but that's not AGI. > > >> YKY:I just want to point out that >> AGI-with-emotions is not necessary goal of AGI. >> >> Which AGI as distinct from narrow AI problems do *not* involve >> *incalculable and possibly unmanageable risks*? - >> >> a)risks that the process of problem-solving will be interminable? >> b)risks that the agent does not have the skills necessary for the >> problem's solution? >> c)risks that the agent hasn't defined the problem properly? >> >> That's what the emotion of fear is - (one of the emotions essential for >> AGI) - a system alert to incalculable and possibly unmanageable risks. >> That's what the classic fight-or-flight response entails - "maybe I can deal >> with this danger but maybe I can't and better avoid it fast."
You seem to be heavily influenced by cognitive linguistics theory. Those people never come up with computational algorithms, all they do is talk. You may have caught that disease too =) I still think the most promising approach is the logic-based one, but I'll add special algorithms to take care of some of the phenomena pointed out by cognitive linguistics. Right now I'm still learning about it. YKY ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
