I honestly wouldn't mind trying to work with ATM to better convey his AI approach than his current methods.
For instance, in one of his "earlier" journels, he references a "boulematic accumulator" - in normal lingo, it means neuron, like a neural network neuron. So, things like that. Maybe he'd gain more credibility with better explanations. And... Less explanations. Sent from ProtonMail mobile -------- Original Message -------- On Feb 16, 2019, 7:52 PM, Steve Richfield wrote: > Matt and Stefan, > > First, let's discuss the nature of reality. Our world is INCREDIBLY complex, > e.g. cells communicate with other cells via ~100 different channels. No > theory can accurately deal with this, e.g. Newton didn't consider Einstein, > Einstein didn't consider dark matter, and I suspect understanding dark matter > will still leave an imperfect understanding. > > ALL theories are wrong!!! Sure, there might be a correct one somewhere, but > if we ever run onto it, we will NOT be able to either recognize it or prove > its perfection. > > The Scientific Method provides a mechanism to prefer some imperfect theories > over other even more imperfect theories. > > Not 1% of 1% of "scientific" papers exist within the above reality, so they > are uncodable in a system that respects the basics of reality. > > Getting down to real world utility, I have developed new cures for several > illnesses, using the information contained in thousands of articles to form > theories to get onto a scientific track. I estimate that only ~1% of articles > contain ANY information that contributes to this process, and even that > information often emerges from between the lines. > > MATT: I seriously question the practicality or value of ANY system operating > on <1% S/N ratio, especially when there is often broad correlation in the > noise - which of course is why they have failed to find solutions. The most > obvious example came in eliminating my own glaucoma blind spots. It dawned on > me that everyone (else) might have simply presumed the wrong direction of > cause and effect - that vascular deterioration was impairing retinal > operation, rather than the reverse. Reversing this presumption quickly led to > a permanent cure using my own modest abilities, and my blind spots are niw > GONE. > > MATT and STEFAN: Facts have referrants. It is (nearly?) impossible to > accurately state ANY real world fact without a LOT of qualification - SO much > qualification that properly qualified facts, if they even exist, would be > worthless because they would only describe a single point in 4-D space-time. > > To get past this, people encode believed relationships, which by their nature > incorporate theories presumed to be accurate, when we know (or should know) > they are NOT accurate. "Modern" AI systems utilize knowledge bases in which > to encode these relationships, e.g. in an algebraic form, as I implemented in > my DrEliza proof of concept. DrEliza only incorporates ~200 such > relationships - close to what Matt calls "rules" but with some substantial > enhancements. Forcing expression into a particular algebraic form brings some > substational advantages, e.g. Bayesian math, Zipf presumptions to fill in > some missing data, etc. > > Legacy approaches (like Arthur has apparently utilized) code "rules" in a > procedural language, in what is often called "ad hoc" (unstructured) > programming. This has an advantage of raw speed to evaluate rules, and you > can hire programmers off the street and put them right to work, but misses > lots of important nuances like the ability to compute confidence, which is > REALLY important in high-value applications like medical diagnosis. Chatbots > (like Arthur has apparently programmed) are typically ad hoc programmed, > because speed is more important than precision. > > EVERY approach to AI is the BEST for SOME applications, so I find ALL of the > openly elitist postings on this forum to be rather irksome. > > What bothers me about Arthur is his unaddressed inability to state what he is > doing in terms that others here can relate to, and his inability to clearly > explain his dream based on this. > > Steve > > On Feb 16, 2019 3:00 PM, "Matt Mahoney" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steve, how many rules are in Dr. Eliza? >> >> How long did it take you to develop Dr. Eliza? >> >> How many rules would it take to encode the knowledge in all the world's >> published scientific papers (75 million)? >> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 1:51 PM Steve Richfield <[email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> Arthur, >>> >>> I have been one of your few supporters, but if you are going to usefully >>> engage with the present audience, you REALLY need to answer two questions, >>> that if done well will lead to other questions, that will lead to a useful >>> conversation... >>> >>> 1. THEORY: In broad computer science terms, how does your system work? >>> From what I can tell, it is an ad hoc text manipulation program capable of >>> gathering information and answering simple questions within the limited >>> subject domains that have been programmed. Right? >>> >>> 2. APPLICATION: What will your approach be able to do that the machine >>> learning approaches discussed here can never ever be extended to do, and >>> why? For example, my system works to diagnose chronic illnesses in a way >>> that can NEVER EVER be equalled with ML approaches. From what I can tell, >>> your system might be extended to make a really good military inventory >>> program. >>> >>> As with all AI programs, their authors have dreams for them that exceed >>> everyone else's expectations, and you and I are no exceptions. I understand >>> that ONLY ad hoc logic will EVER be capable of incorporating human >>> understanding of our world into a computer, a simple fact that is >>> universally rejected by others on this forum for NO good non-religious >>> reason. So, until others here wake up, at minimum, I should be able to >>> relate to your postings. If you can't carry me along, then you truly are >>> COMPLETELY wasting your time and your life by continuing to post. >>> >>> Steve Richfield > > [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/Tc360a468d4050822-M6fe5554cdf4507ca9bcd3ed7) ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc360a468d4050822-Mca56cdaf2e08d23f937de30d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
