Bar a subtle difference, we're mostly in agreement. To my understanding, every de-facto fantastical claim isn't worth researching into.
At a certain level of abstraction, contextual relevance is lost. This is reported as being the bane of object-oriented programming. Why then delve into the abstract without a deabstraction methodology in place, with which to systematically process the information with? Therefore, rather state the research question simply and clearly, even hypothetically. Perhaps then, measurable progress would be more likely. I readily accept my mind does not think like most-other minds do, but to my mind, asking a question that has already been answered, serves little intellectual purpose. ________________________________ From: Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 11 September 2021 23:36 To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> Subject: Re: [agi] UNDERSTANDING -- Part I -- the Survey, online discussion: Sunday 10 a.m. Pacific Time, evening in Europe, you are invited On 9/11/21, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <nano...@live.com> wrote: > A digital machine cannot understand. I don't know why we're trying to invoke > a reality, which simply isn't. Calling a dog's tail a leg, does not add up > to it having 5 legs. We're just playing word games with existentialism, > trying to give gestalt to an elective illusion. It's also referred to as; > forcing the issue. > > Give the machine a comprehension test then, using 2nd, and/or 3rd language > proficiency expressions in pseudo-random foreign dialect and un-English > grammar. What result would you get? Understanding, advanced recognition, or > functional failure? > > My guess is, at best an error message stating: "Would you repeat that > please. I don't understand." AI-driven Dragon Dictate, although a > most-useful program, is a prime example of this. The routine would also end > up in a fatal loop. Why? Because it's probably 3X+1 oriented. > > Suppose understanding was the beginning of wisdom, what would understanding > then be? > > I think the more-realistic research question should be: "Could an AGI entity > - even a biomechanical one - be encoded in such a manner as to achieve a > lower-level of recognizable, clinical consciousness (when compared to humans > in general)?" The reality is that nobody claims their machine is conscious -- but regularly people claim their machine understands, but they don't say what that means > > Or stated differently; considering modern service bots, consciousness can be > faked. How to tell fake from real? > > ________________________________ > From: Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, 11 September 2021 04:50 > To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > Subject: Re: [agi] UNDERSTANDING -- Part I -- the Survey, online discussion: > Sunday 10 a.m. Pacific Time, evening in Europe, you are invited > > It's an easy question to answer... if we know what the machine > understands, we know what it can do. If we don't know what it > understands, we might not. So that's why we don't want sloppy > definitions of understanding in an opaque age of gigantic neural > networks. > > On 9/10/21, Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't understand why we are so hung up on the definition of >> understanding. I think this is like the old debate over whether machines >> could think. Can submarines swim? >> >> Philosophy is arguing about the meanings of words. It is the opposite of >> engineering, which is about solving problems. Define what you want the >> machine to do and figure out how to do it. >> >> I know what it means for a human to understand or think or be conscious. >> For machines it's undefined. What problem does defining them solve? >> Machines learn, predict, and act to satisfy goals. What else do you want >> them to do? >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:06 AM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/9/21, WriterOfMinds <jennifer.hane....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Hey Mike ... I took a look at the Survey doc, and it appears that a >>> > lot >>> of >>> > the opinions are under the wrong names. You've entered my definition >>> > as >>> > James Bowery's, Daniel Jue's definition as mine, and so forth (looks >>> like an >>> > "off by one" sort of error that continues down the document). >>> >>> >>> I think the problem is only that I put the name following the >>> description, right?? I'll switch it around tomorrow so that you see >>> the name first. I quick checked yours and it looked right. >>> >>> >>> > ------------------------------------------ >>> > Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI >>> > Permalink: >>> > >>> https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-M525b91709c9e58f430cb0c40 >>> > Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription >>> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-M05e36469c70f4cee7f86ec99 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
