Agreed Rob ________________________________ From: Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 9:25 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Growing Knowledge
The meta discussion is tedious. Jim Bromer On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:13 PM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim > > Now, in my view, you made 2 assertions that were self refuting. I strongly > disagree bootstrapping and/or relationship-based approaches would enable AGI > now, and into the future. And by focussing on those 2 main items, I'm not > saying everything else you said should not be taken seriously. For the > following reasons, I decided to respond to those 2 items of architectural > relevance: > > Bootstrapping is effectively learning for the machine by pre-empting what the > machine must find and frame as environmental information (via experience). > This is against the commonly held view that AI should aim for intelligence > autonomy. > > Second, relationship is a parent-child structure implying causality and > functional dependency. No matter how "not quite determining" you consider it > to be, it is primarily based on relational theory. This is against the > commonly-held view that AI should aim for autonomy and not smart automation. > > In that sense, those statements have been refuted as being relevant to the > overall development of AGI. > > I proposed alternatives and even allowed for different terminology, but you > elected to ignore those and play hide-and-seek with alleged hidden messages > you would not care to discuss. > > In the interest of transparency, I would encourage you to rather say what you > want to say, or don't. Please be clear and defend your point. I would welcome > the debate, but if you could not care to, then rather admit you are just > trying to throw a spanner in the works of this most-useful, constructive > discussion. > > Rob > ________________________________ > From: Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 8:21 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Growing Knowledge > > How could I possibly know what you missed (without extensive and > tedious meta-conversation about the exchange that we just had)? You > made some exaggerated statement and from that I was able to conclude > that you probably missed some subtleties in my quick comments. > > You cannot 'refute' an open ended statement like, 'x will lead to new > thinking.' You may state an opinion about it or you might say that > there is some premise in the preliminary comments which makes it > unlikely. For example, I say that quantum entanglement is not actually > an AI theory. You can speculate that perhaps qe might explain > consciousness in some way, but that theory is not grounded in feasible > engineering at this time. So, for example, there is enough wrong with > the theory to be confidently dismissive of the idea that quantum > entanglement will lead to new ideas in AGI in the next decade. So, if > we agree to your definition of the word, 'refute' I would say that the > theory that quantum entanglement will lead to new advances in AGI > during the next 10 years can be refuted. (It is my opinion that can be > refuted, if not by argument then by waiting 10 years and seeing what > happens. I would not typically use the word 'refute' in a simple > speculation of opinion, no matter how unlikely the theory that is > being criticized is valid.) > Jim Bromer > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:42 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via > AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jim > > > > Not refuting your thinking, but rather the premise you proposed. At least I > > stated my argument why the notion (if you are ok with that term) is > > refutable. I forgot how sensitive you can be. > > > > So, instead of feeling slighted, why not expound on the subtleties I may > > have missed? > > > > Rob > > ________________________________ > > From: Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 4:47 PM > > To: AGI > > Subject: Re: [agi] Growing Knowledge > > > > In general, you can't actually "refute" my thinking. If I made some > > hypothesis which could be tested in an experiment you might refute the > > hypothesis, but even that could be questioned. I would have to agree > > that the experiment was a good test of my hypothesis or there would > > have to be a consensus of opinion that the experiment was indeed a > > good test of my hypothesis. You might also 'refute' my recollection of > > some fact, especially if there was some evidence that would support > > different recollections or conclusions. Rather than accepting the > > nonsense that you could refute my thinking, my first guess is that you > > have just missed some subtlety in the expression of my thoughts. > > Jim Bromer > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:25 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via > > AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > Bootstrapping a computational platform with domain knowledge (seeding > > > with insights), was already done a few years ago by the ex head of AI > > > research in France. I need to find his blogs again, but apparently he had > > > amazing results with regards re-solving classical mathematical problems. > > > > > > Our question is; would that constitute AGI? > > > > > > I appreciate your comment on how such an approach would not be > > > considered radical at all. However, the claim you make immediately > > > thereafter; that the approach would help to think of the problem in a > > > different way, is refutable. > > > > > > The thinking in terms of relationships suffer the same fate. Not radical, > > > and not thinking in a new or different way. > > > > > > As such, we need to think as radically as we could possibly do. We need > > > to find a few radical approaches and see if they could be focused on a > > > few avenues of pragmatic research. May the best approach win. > > > > > > For example, instead of relationships, thinking free-will (random) > > > associations. This is not a semantic ploy, but a radical departure in > > > terms of AGI architecture. > > > > > > Furthermore, instead of thinking of seeding, rather allowing the > > > computational platform to Find, Frame, Make and Share. This would denote > > > another radical departure in current thinking (I did come across a > > > similar approach recently). > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 2:25 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [agi] Growing Knowledge > > > > > > The idea that an AGI program has to be able to 'grow' knowledge is not > > > conceptually radical but the use of the idea that a program might be > > > seeded with certain kinds of insights does make me think about the > > > problem in a slightly different way. By developing a program to work > > > along principles that are meant to incorporate some way to build on > > > the basis of insights that are provided as the program explores > > > different kinds of subjects I think I might be able to see this theory > > > in the terms of a transition from programming discrete instructions > > > that correspond to a particular sequence of computer operations into > > > programming with instructions that have a potential to grow > > > relationships between the knowledge data. The kinds of relationships > > > do not need to be absolutely pre-determined because the use of basic > > > relationships and references to specific ideas can implicitly develop > > > into more sophisticated relationships that would only need to be > > > recognized. For example, an abstraction of generalization seems pretty > > > fundamental to Old AI. However, I believe that just by using more > > > basic relationships which can refer to other specific ideas and to > > > groups of ideas, the relationships that will effectively refer to a > > > kind of abstraction may develop naturally - in primitive forms. It > > > would be necessary to 'teach' the AGI program to recognize and > > > appreciate these abstractions so that it could then use abstraction > > > more explicitly. > > > Jim Bromer > > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + > > > participants + delivery options Permalink > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants > > + delivery options Permalink > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T032c6a46f393dbd9-M2bef052d1ff097961b3b94a0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
