RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
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 mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi mailto: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 mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi mailto: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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
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
Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason, any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong. On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). From: John G. Rose Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:16 AM To: agi Subject: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi 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
Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Dave, You offer nothing to even attend to. The questions completely unanswered by you are: 1. what basic visual units of analysis have you arrived at? (you say there are such things - you must have arrived at something, no?) - zero answer 2.what kind of physical/visual *pattern* informs our concept of chair? - zero answer. A non-physical pattern pace you is a non-existent entity/figment of your mind, (just as the pattern of divine grace is), - and yet another non-answer. You're supposed to be doing visual AGI - put up something visual in answer to the questions, or, I suggest, keep quiet. From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: agi Subject: Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason, any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong. On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind of object is that kind of object. I believe that the problem must be a problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program. A young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs. In a few cases, after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood) he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or not. And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair). The question for me is not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: 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. John --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.? From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
I already stated these. read previous emails. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.? *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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/ | Modifyhttps://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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Examples of nonphysical patterns? From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
No you didn't. You're being evasive through and through. You haven't answered the questions put to you in any shape or form other than nonphysical - and never will. Nor do you have any answer. Finis. From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:51 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 I already stated these. read previous emails. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.? From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike, Quoting a previous email: QUOTE In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. END QUOTE Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out there camping, you can sit on it. I could say sit on that fridge couch over there. The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to call it a couch. But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it's a fridge. So, when the object has a more common effective use, as I stated above, it is usually referred to by that use. If something is most likely used for sitting by a single person, then it is a chair. If its most common best use is something else, like cooling food, you would call it a fridge. So, maybe the pattern would be, if it has some features like a chair, like possible arm rests, a soft bottom, cushions, legs, a back rest, etc. and you can't see it being used as anything else, then maybe it's a chair. If someone sits on it, it certainly is a chair, if you find it by searching for chairs, its likely a chair. etc. You see, chairs are not simply recognized by their physical structure. There are multiple ways you can recognize it and it is certainly important to know that it doesn't seem useful for another task. The idea that chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes, sizes and structures is just wrong. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Examples of nonphysical patterns? *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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/ | Modifyhttps://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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms? I do not reckon that it will work for an infant or anyone (or anything) who (or that) has only seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms. I haven't looked at your photos, but I did indicate that learning has to be able to advance with new kinds of objects of a kind. My previous comment specifically dealt with the problem of learning to recognize radically different instances of the kind. There was once a time when it was thought that domain-specific AI, using general methods of reasoning would be more feasible than general AI. This optimism was not borne out by experiment. The question is why not? I believe that domain specific AI needs to rely on so much general knowledge (AGI) as a base, that until a certain level of success in AGI is achieved, narrower domain specific AI will be limited to calculation-based reasoning and the like (as in closed taxonomic AI or simple neural networks). A similar situation occurred in space travel. At the dawn of the space age some people intuitively thought that traveling to the moon would be 2000 times more difficult than sending a space vehicle up a 100 miles (since it was 2000 times further away) so if it took 10 years to get to the pont where they could get a space capsule up 100 miles, it would take 2 years to reach the moon. It didn't work that way, because as the leading experts realized, getting away from earth's gravity results in a significant and geometric decrease in the force needed to continue. Because this fact was not intuitive to the naive critic it wasn't completely grasped by many people until the first space vehicle escaped earth orbit a few years after the first space shots. I think a similar situation probably is at the center of the feasibility of basic AGI. As more and more examples are learned, the complications in storing and accessing that information in a wise and intelligent manner become more and more elusive. But, for example, if domain specific information is dependent on a certain level of general knowledge, then you won't see domain specific AI really take off until that level of AGI becomes feasible. Why would this relationship occur? Because each time you double *all* knowledge (as is implied by a doubling of general knowledge) you have a progressively more complicated load on the computer. So to double that general knowledge twice, you would have to create an AGI program that was capable of dealing with four times as much complexity. To double that general knowledge again, you would have to create an AGI program that would have to deal with 8 times the complexity as your first prototype. Once you get your AGI program to work at a certain level of complexity, then your domain-specific AI program might start to take off and you would see the kind of dazzling results which would make the critics more wary of expressing their skepticism. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms? (You're effectively misreading the set of fotos - altho. this needs making clear - a major point of the set is: how will any concept/schema of chair, derived from any set of particular kinds of chairs, cope with a radically new kind of chair? Just saying - well let's analyse the chairs we have - is not an answer. You can take it for granted that the new chair will have some feature[s]/form that constitutes a radical departure from existing ones. (as is amply illustrated by my set of fotos). And yet your - an AGI - mind can normally adapt and recognize the new object as a chair. ). *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 12:50 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind of object is that kind of object. I believe that the problem must be a problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program. A young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs. In a few cases, after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood) he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or not. And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair). The question for me is not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Hi David, I read the essay I think it summarizes well some of the key issues involving the bridge between perception and cognition, and the hierarchical decomposition of natural concepts I find the ideas very harmonious with those of Jeff Hawkins, Itamar Arel, and other researchers focused on hierarchical deep learning approaches to vision with longer-term AGI ambitions I'm not sure there are any dramatic new ideas in the essay. Do you think there are? My own view is that these ideas are basically right, but handle only a modest percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like AGI I.e. I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage... -- Ben G On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
, But what's not so obvious - although undeniable - is how stretchable and fluid that line must be in order to recognize diverse objects - as diverse as one octopus, one cactus, one mountain. See foto below. The brain can stretch a line outwards to encompass any form of object in the universe - or conversely, squeeze/stretch any object inwards to form a 1. All those objects in the foto can be squeezed/stretched into that one on the top left. Now is anyone here going to have the gall to tell me that process of object recognition is mathematical? But just as strings are - or could be - central to matter and physics; so are fluid schemas central to intelligence - and especially to concepts. **Correction - a blind idiot *could* see - by touch - that the diverse forms of one octopus/flower etc could not be reduced to a line by any mathematical process. P.S. When I say that maths cannot deal with fluid schemas and object recognition, one should perhaps amend that - it may be that no existing form of maths. wh. deals entirely in set forms and patterns can, but that a creative version of maths, dealing in free forms and patchworks, could. P.P.S. String - the concept - itself involves an extremely fluid schema - is a variation, in fact, of the schema of one/1 - and must embrace many diverse forms that strings may be shaped into. *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 2:13 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, Quoting a previous email: QUOTE In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. END QUOTE Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out there camping, you can sit on it. I could say sit on that fridge couch over there. The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to call it a couch. But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it's a fridge. So, when the object has a more common effective use, as I stated above, it is usually referred to by that use. If something is most likely used for sitting by a single person, then it is a chair. If its most common best use is something else, like cooling food, you would call it a fridge. So, maybe the pattern would be, if it has some features like a chair, like possible arm rests, a soft bottom, cushions, legs, a back rest, etc. and you can't see it being used as anything else, then maybe it's a chair. If someone sits on it, it certainly is a chair, if you find it by searching for chairs, its likely a chair. etc. You see, chairs are not simply recognized by their physical structure. There are multiple ways you can recognize it and it is certainly important to know that it doesn't seem useful for another task. The idea that chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes, sizes and structures is just wrong. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Examples of nonphysical patterns? *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be a physical pattern. LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such restrictions. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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/ | Modifyhttps://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/ | Modifyhttps://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/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Thanks Ben, I think the biggest difference with the way I approach it is to be deliberate in how the system solves specific kinds of problems. I haven't gone into that in detail yet though. For example, Itamar seems to want to give the AI the basic building blocks that make up spaciotemporal dependencies as a sort of bag of features and just let a neural-net-like structure find the patterns. If that is not accurate, please correct me. I am very skeptical of such approaches because there is no guarantee at all that the system will properly represent the relationships and structure of the data. It seems just hopeful to me that such a system would get it right out of the vast number of possible results it could accidental arrive at. The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to learn from perceptual data. I think a more deliberate approach would be more effective because we can understand why it does what it does, how it does it, and why its not working if it doesn't work. With such deliberate approaches, it is much more clear how to proceed and to reuse knowledge in many complementary ways. This is what I meant by emergence. I propose a more deliberate approach that knows exactly why problems can be solved a certain way and how the system is likely to solve them. I'm suggesting to represent the spaciotemporal relationships deliberately and explicitly. Then we can construct general algorithms to solve problems explicitly, yet generally. Regarding computer vision not being that important... Don't you think that because knowledge is so essential and manual input is inneffective, perception-based acquisition of knowledge is a very serious barrier to AGI? It seems to me that the solutions to AGI problems being constructed are not using knowledge gained from simulated perception effectively. OpenCog's natural language processing for example, seems to use very very little knowledge that would be gathered from visual perception. As far as I remember, it mostly uses things that are learned from other sources. To me, it doesn't make sense to spend so much time debugging and developing such solutions, when a better and more general approach to language understanding would use a lot of knowledge. Those are the sorts of things I feel are new to this approach. Thanks Again, Dave PS: I'm planning to go to the Singularity Summit :) Last minute. Hope to see you there. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi David, I read the essay I think it summarizes well some of the key issues involving the bridge between perception and cognition, and the hierarchical decomposition of natural concepts I find the ideas very harmonious with those of Jeff Hawkins, Itamar Arel, and other researchers focused on hierarchical deep learning approaches to vision with longer-term AGI ambitions I'm not sure there are any dramatic new ideas in the essay. Do you think there are? My own view is that these ideas are basically right, but handle only a modest percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like AGI I.e. I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage... -- Ben G On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not available to humans) You misunderstood my statement. I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to learn from perceptual data. That is not a proof, of course. It could be that given a general architecture, and inputs with certain statistical properties, the same internal structures inevitably self-organize I think a more deliberate approach would be more effective because we can understand why it does what it does, how it does it, and why its not working if it doesn't work. With such deliberate approaches, it is much more clear how to proceed and to reuse knowledge in many complementary ways. This is what I meant by emergence. I understand the general concept. I am reminded a bit of Poggio's hierarchical visual cortex simulations -- which do attempt to emulate the human brain's specific processing, on a neuronal cluster and inter-cluster connectivity level However, Poggio hasn't yet solved the problem of making this kind of deliberately-engineered hierarchical vision network incorporate cognition== perception feedback. At this stage it seems basically a feedforward system. So I'm curious -- what are the specific pattern-recognition modules that you will put into your system, and how will you arrange them hierarchically? -- how will you handle feedback connections (top-down) among the modules? thx ben --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Which is? From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not available to humans) You misunderstood my statement. I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Point about DESTIN, it has no preconceived assumptions. Some of the entities might be chairs, but it will not have been specifically told about a chair. - Ian Parker On 9 August 2010 12:50, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind of object is that kind of object. I believe that the problem must be a problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program. A young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs. In a few cases, after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood) he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or not. And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair). The question for me is not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: 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. John *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re : [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
sorry,i think all the cognition are base on a private language of models base on topolical geometrical dynamic in our web mental therefore the mecanism of vision serve at visionmental-vision bruno De : Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk À : agi agi@v2.listbox.com Envoyé le : Lun 9 août 2010, 18h 48min 49s Objet : Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Which is? From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Ben:I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not available to humans) You misunderstood my statement. I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
IMO the hardest part is not any particular part, but rather integration: getting all the parts to work together in a scalable, adaptive way... On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Which is? *From:* Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not available to humans) You misunderstood my statement. I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Ben, Comments below. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to learn from perceptual data. That is not a proof, of course. It could be that given a general architecture, and inputs with certain statistical properties, the same internal structures inevitably self-organize You're right, I should organize details and evidence that the human brain has a lot of its processing algorithms built in. Another example of this innate ability to process inputs the right way is the fact that many language acquisition researchers believe that children have a built-in hypothesis space that they use when learning language (see generativism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition). It is likely not enough to just give it all the data it needs and let it guess till it fines a good answer. The hypothesis space is likely too large. So I'm curious -- what are the specific pattern-recognition modules that you will put into your system, and how will you arrange them hierarchically? Well, the first pattern-recognition modules are the ones for inferring scene and object structures and properties from visual/lidar data. I can't really be specific because The next set of pattern-recognition modules would be for inferring relationships such as object whole-to-part relationships and their other behavioral relationships. Basically, algorithms for inferring a sparse or dense models of objects. Again, it is quite hard to be specific about algorithms. There is a lot of detailed analysis that I have yet to do for each type of problem and how the whole is broken down into these types of relationships. Again, as you can see, I think the problem can be broken down into generic components that can be reasoned about. As for hierarchical design... I haven't decided yet. It really depends on the purpose of the hierarchy and its function. That's why in the paper I stress function before design. -- how will you handle feedback connections (top-down) among the modules? That's a very good question. I haven't decided yet really because I haven't fully worked out all the pieces of the design and how they must interact to solve problems. I'd need to analyze specific requirements and what problems such feedback is required to solve. I guess one example of feedback might be the interpretation of ambiguous visual input, such as single images from a less than ideal camera and scene setup. Such problems require feedback from knowledge. I see this as a separate visual processing system from the visual learning system that I mentioned in the paper. This is because the system I designed is for learning from less ambiguous input. Once it has gained sufficient knowledge this way, more ambiguous input would be possible to process and understand with confidence. So, clearly much still has to be worked out about the design. But, my working assumption is that these things can be broken down analytically and solved. The alternative is to just hope that a similar-to-the-brain model is going to work. I just don't think we can reasonably hope that such a model will work, be effective and be efficient. I think it is just too hard to guess at the right structure that will solve the problems without actually showing how it solves all the problems we want to apply it to. * I really think it is very important for the functional requirements to create the design.* Regardless of the approach, we need to understand why the solutions we create solve the problems we want to solve. And if we can't show that they do solve them or how they solve them, then the odds are against us that they will work. That's my opinion. If one could show how deep learning models, for example, really do solve all the problems we want to solve, then I would be willing to use them. I just don't see it though. I doesn't seem that the solution was generated by the problem. It seems more that the solution was generated based on its similarity to the brain. I just can't accept the risk that such approaches won't work. Since I don't think reverse engineering the brain makes sense either. My only alternative to those two approaches seems to be the one I'm taking. Dave --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
-Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] The question for me is not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think that this subsystem would take up millions of lines of code either. It's just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure IMO. John --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Hmm... Shall we coin this the Tinter Contrarian Pattern? Or anti-pattern :) John From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason, any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong. On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, 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 mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi mailto: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 mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi mailto: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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi 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 | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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.ukwrote: 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.ukwrote: 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
:) what you don't realize is that patterns don't have to be strictly limited to the actual physical structure. In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. If you think this is not a sufficient refutation of your argument, then please don't argue with me regarding it anymore. I know your opinion and respectfully disagree. If you don't accept my counter argument, there is no point to continuing this back and forth ad finitum. Dave On Aug 8, 2010 9:29 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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 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.ukwrote: 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.ukwrote: 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
There is nothing visual or physical or geometric or quasi geometric about what you're saying - no shapes or forms whatsoever to your idea of patterns or chair or sitting. Given an opportunity to discuss physical concretes - and what actually physically constitutes a chair, or any other concept/class-of-forms is fascinating and central to AGI - you retreat into vague abstractions while claiming to be interested in visual AGI. Fine, let's leave it there. From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:12 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 :) what you don't realize is that patterns don't have to be strictly limited to the actual physical structure. In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. If you think this is not a sufficient refutation of your argument, then please don't argue with me regarding it anymore. I know your opinion and respectfully disagree. If you don't accept my counter argument, there is no point to continuing this back and forth ad finitum. Dave On Aug 8, 2010 9:29 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Abram, Thanks for the comments. I think probability is just one way to deal with uncertainty. Defeasible reasoning is another. Non-monotonic logic of various implementations. I often think that probability is the wrong way to do some things regarding AGI design. Maybe things can't be known with super high confidence, but we still want as high confidence as reasonably possible. Once we have that, we just have to have working assumptions and working hypotheses. From there we need the ability to update beliefs if we can find a reason to think the beliefs are wrong... Dave On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: (Without this sort of generality, your approach seems restricted to gathering knowledge about whatever events unfold in front of a limited quantity of high-quality camera systems which you set up. To be honest, the usefulness of that sort of knowledge is not obvious.) On second thought, this statement was a bit naive. You obviously intend the camera systems to be connected to robots or other systems which perform actual tasks in the world, providing a great variety of information including feedback from success/failure of actions to achieve results. What is unrealistic to me is not that this information could be useful, but that this level of real-world intelligence could be achieved with the super-high confidence bounds you are imagining. What I think is that probabilistic reasoning is needed. Once we have the object/location/texture information with those confidence bounds (which I do see as possible), gaining the sort of knowledge Cyc set out to contain seems inherently statistical. --Abram On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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.ukwrote: 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 RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other 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? 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. 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. 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 have to demonstrate a capacity for dealing with the new. (As opposed to, say, narrow AI squares). From: David Jones Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:44 PM To: agi Subject: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
David, Seems like a reasonable argument to me. I agree with the emphasis on acquiring knowledge. I agree that tackling language first is not the easiest path. I agree with the comments on compositionality of knowledge the regularity of the vast majority of the environment. Vision seems like a fine domain choice. However, there are other domain choices. I think your goal of generality would be well-served by keeping in mind some of these other domains at the same time as vision, so that your algorithms have some cross-domain applicability. The same algorithm that can find patterns in the visual field should also be able to find patterns in a database of medical information, say. That is my way of thinking, at least. (Without this sort of generality, your approach seems restricted to gathering knowledge about whatever events unfold in front of a limited quantity of high-quality camera systems which you set up. To be honest, the usefulness of that sort of knowledge is not obvious.) --Abram On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: (Without this sort of generality, your approach seems restricted to gathering knowledge about whatever events unfold in front of a limited quantity of high-quality camera systems which you set up. To be honest, the usefulness of that sort of knowledge is not obvious.) On second thought, this statement was a bit naive. You obviously intend the camera systems to be connected to robots or other systems which perform actual tasks in the world, providing a great variety of information including feedback from success/failure of actions to achieve results. What is unrealistic to me is not that this information could be useful, but that this level of real-world intelligence could be achieved with the super-high confidence bounds you are imagining. What I think is that probabilistic reasoning is needed. Once we have the object/location/texture information with those confidence bounds (which I do see as possible), gaining the sort of knowledge Cyc set out to contain seems inherently statistical. --Abram On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
