On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, sorry about that. I am using firefox and had no problems. The
site was just the first reference I was able to find using google.
Wikipedia references the same fact:
Abram,
Just FYI... When I attempted to access the Web page in your message,
http://www.learnartificialneuralnetworks.com/ (that's without the
backpropagation.html part), my virus checker, AVG, blocked the attempt
with a message similar to the following:
Threat detected!
Virus found:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Brad Paulsen wrote:
Abram,
Just FYI... When I attempted to access the Web page in your message,
http://www.learnartificialneuralnetworks.com/ (that's without the
backpropagation.html part), my virus checker, AVG, blocked the attempt
with a message similar to
Abram:I am worried-- worried that an AGI system based on anything less than
the one most powerful logic will be able to fool AGI researchers for a
long time into thinking that it is capable of general intelligence.
Can you explain this to me? (I really am interested in understanding your
Mike,
There are at least 2 ways this can happen, I think. The first way is
that a mechanism is theoretically proven to be complete, for some
less-than-sufficient formalism. The best example of this is one I
already mentioned: the neural nets of the nineties (specifically,
feedforward neural nets
Abram,
The key distinction here is probably that some approach to AGI may be widely
accepted as having great *promise*. That has certainly been the case,
although I doubt actually that it could happen again. There were also no
robots of note in the past. Personally, I can't see any approach
Mike,
But this is horrible! If what you are saying is true, then research
will barely progress.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abram,
The key distinction here is probably that some approach to AGI may be widely
accepted as having great *promise*. That
Charles,
I find this perspective interesting. Given what logicians know so far,
it is more plausible that there is not one right logic, but merely a
hierarchy of better/worse/different logics. My search for the top is
somewhat unjustified (but I cannot help myself from thinking that
there must be
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I am looking for a system that is me.
You, like everyone else's me, has it's limitations. So there is a
difference between the potential of the system and the actual system.
This point of stressing potentiality rather
That made more sense to me. Responses follow.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I am looking for a system that is me.
You, like everyone else's me, has it's limitations. So there
Our ability to think about abstractions and extrapolations off of
abstractions comes because we are able to create game boundaries
around the systems that we think about. So yes you can talk about
infinite resources and compare it to the domain of the lambda
calculus, but this kind of thinking is
I don't think the problems of a self-referential paradox is
significantly more difficult than the problems of general reference.
Not only are there implicit boundaries, some of which have to be
changed in an instant as the conversation develops, there are also
multiple levels of
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The paradox seems trivial, of course. I generally agree with your
analysis (describing how we consider the sentence, take into account
its context, and so on. But the big surprise to logicians was that the
paradox is not
One of the worst problems of early AI was that it over-generalized
when it tried to use a general rule on a specific case. Actually they
over-generalized, under-generalized, and under-specified problem
solutions, but over-generalization was the most notable because they
relied primarily on word
I realized that I made a very important error in my brief description
of prejudice. Prejudice is the application of over-generalizations,
typically critical, that are inappropriately applied to a group. The
cause of the prejudice is based on a superficial characteristic that
most of the members
This looks like it could be an interesting thread.
However, I disagree with your distinction between ad hoc and post hoc.
The programmer may see things from the high-level maze view, but the
program itself typically deals with the mess. So, I don't think
there is a real distinction to be made
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A more worrisome problem is that B may be contradictory in and of
itself. If (1) I can as a human meaningfully explain logical system X,
and (2) logical system X can meaningfully explain anything that humans
can, then (3)
Jim,
You are right to call me on that. I need to provide an argument that,
if no logic satisfying B exists, human-level AGI is impossible.
B1: A foundational logic for a human-level intelligence should be
capable of expressing any concept that a human can meaningfully
express.
If a broad enough
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim,
You are right to call me on that. I need to provide an argument that,
if no logic satisfying B exists, human-level AGI is impossible.
I don't know why I am being so aggressive these days. I don't start
out intending
The paradox (I assume that is what you were pointing to) is based on
your idealized presentation. Not only was your presentation
idealized, but it was also exaggerated.
I sometimes wonder why idealizations can be so effective in some
cases. An idealization is actually an imperfect way of
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim,
You are right to call me on that. I need to provide an argument that,
if no logic satisfying B exists, human-level AGI is impossible.
I don't know
21 matches
Mail list logo
