Mike T,
> The "so what" is this - while I take your point, Ben, I doubt that any AGI > exercises, a la Poggio & Arel, are actually going to be any better - once > you allow for the fact that AGI-tests are always on much more heavily > controlled & selected/ "configured" materials. > I understand your feelings, but the Google results are irrelevant to the success of AGI methods. That's like saying the Wright Brothers were doomed to fail, based on the evidence that Icarus-type flight methods failed ;p .... The failure of one sort of method, does not doom all other approaches.... If you see all different AI / AGI methods as basically the same, that's just because you have terrible vision ... Do you have any tests that show any real AGI promise whatsoever? > No tests that would impress skeptics, let alone an anti-rational ideologue such as yourself ;) Similarly, before the Wright Brothers first flight, they had no test results that would have impressed skeptics or anti-flight ideologues. Flight skeptics sure wouldn't have given a rat's ass about the wind tunnel tests they did while perfecting their wings... > > The thesis I wish to play with is that just as words reduce to letters, so > do visual forms reduce to a basic alphabet of abstract forms (albeit not a > precise, closed alphabet) - which would include such basic units as the > blob, wedge, chunk, (irregular), and the circle, triangle, square, > (regular) and straight and zig-zag or wavy lines. > > And a Google or more AGI exercise of recognition may be able to, with some > mild but unimpressive success, identify similar basic forms. > There is a fairly obscure approach to computer vision, called image grammars, that works as you're suggesting. Indeed, its results are pretty poor so far. Google's image processing works based on totally unrelated methods, that use statistical and machine learning methods to find highly complex mathematical combinations of large numbers of very low-level image features (much lower level than the "basic units" you mention) that imitate human image categorization judgments. Your fascination with these topics is admirable, but you repeatedly demonstrate that you lack the technical background to really understand the things you're talking about ;-p ... **** P.S. I was looking for a phrase as I wrote this & I may have got it - it's not enough to know about the physics and biomechanics of movement, in order to understand bodies - you have to know about the ART OF MOVEMENT. Human and animal movement are indeed an art - both in terms of production and the final forms of movement. Knowing about biomechanics will not help you understand or predict the infinitely open-ended range of dances that humans keep producing. Understanding and creating those dances is literally, technically, an art/art form - just as drawing dancers is. *** This kind of argumentation is very uninteresting at the current stage, because chess masters would also argue that chess is an art form too. Also, I feel like doing integrals in calculus is an art form, but Mathematica does them better than me. Basically, whatever AI hasn't conquered yet, will be called a "art form that computers can't emulate" -- until AI has conquered it, and then it gets crossed off the list ;p It seems you persistently confuse the subjective feeling that humans have when conducting an activity, with the underlying mechanisms that enable them to perform the activity. For example, if we fall in love, we may feel that our beloved is the most beautiful and amazing person in the world. But that doesn't make it objectively true. Similarly, we may feel that we are carrying out some amazing non-computational intuitive process when we move our pawn on the chess board, or raise our arm while playing tennis But that doesn't make it so, from a physical and scientific perspective. These are elementary philosophical errors you're making, but you seem to be stuck in a rut of sorts, and maybe you won't ever get out, unless someone forcibly modifies your brain. I have a strange feeling that, even if you were shown an AGI that could do everything a human can do, you still wouldn't believe it was **really** intelligent, and would just consider it an irrelevant parlor trick ;) ... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
