Colin I accept your empassioned argument. I call what I do AGI, for the simple reason that it encodes tacit and explicit knowledge into systems models, which are transferable onto a computational platform. Now, that is not AGI yet, but to my understanding it resembles one of the critical building blocks that would help enable eventual AGI. What I do, pertains to AGI. However, about a year ago I posted a sound theoretical and semantic argument on this group why the term AGI was superfluous to the context of machine intelligence. As is typical, no one bothered commenting on it. Yet, the term AGI stuck, so we are being forced to use it.
In my view, AI is AI, at different levels of operation and maturity. Still, let's go with the flow and keep it in context of a version of AGI, shall we? This methodology I developed then - at that point - resembled a KM component, having features for 1-step mutation, diversification, and recombination. Quantum based in meta design and evolutionary in operation. Here, I mean Darwinian in evolution as a complex-adaptive system, not some other mantra. The result constitutes a scientific method within a holistic, systems framework to enable systems-based communication. It has its own language and rules. A full-blown ontology. Not a computer language, but a symbolic way to express itself in, sufficiently effective to achieve the aforementioned complex-adaptive characteristics. Again, that does not constitute AGI. Merely some critical building blocks towards AGI. Still, if we could manage to place a dynamically-driven knowledge engine on a computational platform, and leave it be in a location where natural stimuli may, or may not affect its behavioral responses, and it actually auto-responded to adapt to these stimuli, and showed assimilation of these environmental changes to a degree that same stimuli were seemingly adapted to in learning, we may be ready to start thinking about such a platform as edging towards AGI functionality. Now, again, I'm not going to call that AGI, but would be bold enough to point out that the resultant machine would offer up critical building blocks towards achieving AGI functionality. Suppose then, we could empirically translate all knowledge this machine encountered and encoded in such a standardized language, and integrated it with the knowledge base of this machine? When we saw this knowledge being synthesized, aged, recombined into new contexts, in a traceable manner, would we then concede the makings of AGI? Furthermore, when we observed this knowledge in states of regression, new insights extracted from the source, and then recombined as new knowledge to be synthesized with predictive contexts, would we concede AGI functionality? When such discoveries were taught to source, via autonomous updates, and so on progressively, would we reconsider AGI functionality? I think Turing had great vision, but nonetheless vision limited by the next step of foreseeable computer engineering - a psycho-social need for humans to relate to machines. AGI should not be tested for by how it mimics humans. It's way beyond the performance of average human beings. It should be tested by how far it can autonomously extend human-centric functionality, with self-motivated intent. To do so, would mean to know humankind. AGI then? Simplistically speaking, I envision a machine with the ability to autonomously spot an environmental situation, and motivating itself under its own power to successfully act upon that environmental factor, to would so with increasing success. I may envision other machines too, even sub-species of machines. But this one, empirically, it must be hard coded in its value set (it's social conscience if you will) to do good to mankind, meaning to apply its resources and comprehension to know what constitutes good to mankind and its environment, and have the knowhow to autonomously apply effective complexity to achieve the specific level of eco-systemic good in that particular context. To do so, off course it would have to ensure its own survival and the survival of any goal-centric enabled network of autonomous machines. Then, would we call that AGI? Assuming the phletora of sensors available to enable humano-robotic features such as hearing, vision, speech, and touch, I would be bold enough to say that in such a machine, emotion (as feedback-driven motivational competency), would become possible. I can say this with certainty, because these systems models have already been completed and tried and tested. The framework exists. The method exists. Many, other modular components exist. My next job would be to assemble such a machine and achieve that which you so candidly assert no possibility of exists. I would spend the rest of my life doing so, which is rather short in terms of scientific development. However, you have no right to discount the 23-odd years I've spent on this journey with a solid vision guiding me. I do not blame you for your perspective, but based on what I've experienced during practical tests of these models, and subsequently submitted as well-disguised field research to the IEEE for review, and more, you are simply not properly informed yet. Not all knowledge is published or paraded plainly, meaning we can only see as far as our eyes can reach. In my case, I only showed that, which I chose to show, for my research reasons. As a scientist dealing in the realm of possibility let me challenge you then with your own words. What if, this was meta AGI? What if... Rob ________________________________ From: Colin Hales via AGI <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2018 11:06 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. On Sun., 19 Aug. 2018, 6:11 pm Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Colin You're right, off course. My point is; if AGI would not deal with this level of abstract, human communication of temporal, emotive states, how would it ever be taken seriously to solve highly-abstract problems? Poets do indeed have their say. 😉 Next year, I hope to be living in Panama. From a stronger base, I'm quite certain I would then be able to start addressing the big issues in life in terms of a pragmatic AGI application. For example, using AGI-tech to help understand and mitigate the unfolding, Fukushima nuclear disaster, which is affecting the globe. There are life-existential problems to come to grips with and find resolutions for regarding; health, safety, food and water security, and environmental contamination. There's more than enough work for all of us interested in the field and no time to waste. Not all of us would be able to run away to Mars. I think that is primarily where AGI development should be heading in. Rob Rob, There are eras in science history where an entire thread of a particular science works diligently and thoroughly for a very long time, and then finds itself facing a shift that renders the entire era irrelevant or misguided. AGI is one of those eras. There are hundreds of folk like yourself, that follow ideas. It's all great stuff and you never know what will result. In what you just said about your Panama plan and environmental work, you are presupposing the very things my little story questions. You presuppose that AGI science has actually started. For the reasons in the story (yes, it's all there!) AGI hasn't started yet. Instead, vast cliques of automation have been labelled AI and AGI and GAI and sometimes ASI. All valuable work. But none of it is founded on a properly formed science, with a real empirical basis. That's the problem. Everyone assumes that to pick up a computer leads, potentially, to Artificial General Intelligence. A culture born in the 'rapture' of the story. I severely challenge that presuposition in the comedy and in my book. Dressing a computer-based brain in a robot suit does not do empirical AGI. It is an elaborate form of theoretical neuroscience. All these issues are in the comedy. I am trying to get everyone to realise it. Real AGI science will only ever start when brain physics is put on the chips. It's big science, chip foundry work, and hasn't ever even been thought about until now, let alone started. So when you specify that you're heading off to do the things you say, and I'm sure you'll do good work, I'm making a case that you shouldn't be calling it AGI. And I don't just single out you. You're in great company. I mean everybody. The whole thing. Since 1956. I am trying every means at my disposal to get this message out. Nobody is working on AI. Nobody is working on AGI. Everybody is working on automation using theoretical models of the brain and calling it an artificial version of intelligence. When it's not. This mistake has only ever happened in this one place. And it could only ever happen at the birth of computers. And it did. Turning this around and correcting the science is what the story is about. At these points in science history, those that turn up with the correction to practice don't usually have a good time. I can confirm that! It's no fun at all. Also, in these periods of shift, non-standard forms of communication can help dislodge the glasses of the received view. And occasionally you get to send the whole thing up. I hope your adventures are rewarding and impactful, but just imagine if you're mistaken in calling it AGI. Just ask yourself that 'What if ....' Cheers Colin Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc4740af26e8cd0ee-M882d8308dcf1a167814c284c> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc4740af26e8cd0ee-Mc9fbeedefca0621daaa6005b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
