Mike, I beg to differ and to agree on various points. I differ on the perspective of learning. Typical learning processes within humans involve the generic functionality of continuous deabstraction, classification, association, prioritization, storage, and recall, and perhaps a few more.
Where I would agree is how the schema of Learning (not just the process) would include a sub-schema of Compression, probably in contexts of storage and retrieval. In itself -except for continuous deabstraction - these functions are already performed in a myriad of computational applications. Continuous deabstraction may be hard-coded as a computational routine. The theory exists. In some instances, this may qualify as AI, in particular machine learning. However, what has been realized by many researchers the world over is that a competency in deabstraction it still is not enough to evolve AI to a level of exponential and growth far beyond humans. I think, this problem persists because of the linear tendency involved with all technological progress. Someone else said exactly such a linear thing, by stating how progress is a matter of progressive steps. In my humble view (because we know so little) that is where 97% of current AI to AGI designers go wrong. How does anyone invent a computational architecture that is limited by one's own linear thinking? There I would agree with your philosophical premise. The need for radically (perhaps new) thinking was previously stated on this forum. We cannot totally relay on past knowledge. We need to approach the evolution of an eventual solution from another worldly perspective. In a way, designers of AGI need to have an ability to stop being human. It;s mad, I know it. But, I think, that's what it would take, a functional madness when compared to the R&D norms. Ben seems to have such a functional madness (no insult intended, but rather a compliment). But even Ben with his super intelligence and vast knowledge of so many things, still hasn't figured this out yet. I think it's because the exact point is that it cannot be figured out first. We love figuring things out, don't we? Such designers need to have a gift for visualizing such an evolutionary architecture that requires no human intelligence after the meta-architectural fact (probably up to 6 layers deep for starters) for its own development. I appreciate Jim Bromer's labeling of my musings as madness, or fantastical. It means I'm on the right track. At least, I've the prospect of discovering a new portal, or similar, towards AGI enablers. My view is that those who persist in their linearized, computer-based thinking, no matter how eloquent, or "complex adaptive", or advanced, never will. It's a matter of the inherent quality of the mind first, before relying on the superiority of the mind alone. As such, it's an existential challenge of Homo Sapiens proportions. We cannot even seemingly tolerate diversity on this forum without resorting to insults and social ridicule. How could we ever hope to design an architecture (let alone some knowledge-based computer routine) to set up the stage for enabling diversity? In my opinion, within the realm of realizing a functional version of AGI there simply is no room for an intellectual, class struggle. The higher intelligence would not allow that to be. This social "need", which continuously hampers this forum, is the very death of it. We seemingly are the AGI in action, to be observed. As humans, we all succumb to such carnal and humanness characteristics, to need and want all the time. We tend to be consumers, not prophetic designers and builders. With all due respect, I see no superiority here in any of us. The art and science of AGI, has relevance. Einstein reminded us as such. What seems to be lacking most is not the rigor of science, but the creative beauty of art. Purpose always goes to motive. Robert Benjamin Mike Archbold via AGI <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2018 12:47 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Compressed Algorithms at can work on compressed data. The fascinating thing for me about this discussion is the notion that when we talk about compression, it is just the psychological equivalent of learning an idea. In philosophy it is like determining what is essential, universal. In old AI it would be like learning the rules. It's generalization. Whenever anybody wrote a program or manual procedure anywhere, it was compression of the circumstances into some kind of generality that could be expressed in as simple a program as possible. So, the point I am making is that this is not something limited to AGI. On 10/9/18, Stefan Reich via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > This is such a weird statement. Like you try to make the human look stupid, > but it is really smarter for AI production to have smart humans. I kind of > conclude you are not actually in the AI game yourself. > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 9:44 AM Stefan Reich via AGI <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]> schrieb am So., 7. Okt. 2018 >>> 03:25: >>> >>>> I understand the desire to understand what an AGI knows. But that makes >>>> you smarter than the AGI. I don't think you want that. >>>> >>> >>> Sure I want that! >>> >> >> No you don't. It would be like writing a chess program that you could >> always beat. >> >> *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/T55454c75265cabe2-Ma6f01d88c4758d17dc492263> >> > > > -- > Stefan Reich > BotCompany.de // Java-based operating systems ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T55454c75265cabe2-M6c48d3d0d927022be2779cf0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
