Jim,
Is this your actual belief or is this disinformation?
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:40:22 -0400
Subject: [agi] Prediction Did Not Work (except in narrow ai.)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
The original idea behind the use of "prediction" in AI was that the prediction
could be compared against the actuality and that comparison could be used to
test the theory that produced the prediction. (Some author popularized that
model for AI but it was proposed by academic researchers before he did so. Karl
Popper used the concept as part of his model of scientific discovery in the
1930s, but his principles, which were based on logical positivism, have become
more dubious because logical certainty has become a more dubious principle of
knowledge. And, oh, by the way, Popper did not believe that AI was possible.)
So, continuing with the march of the use of "prediction" in AI, AI people could
see that our expectations were like "predictions" and so it did seem that the
human mind did indeed use a method of prediction. Of course the principle that
a prediction could be compared against an actuality in order to evaluate the
accuracy of a theory only works in narrow AI, and as narrow AI failed to
produce simple AGI that part of the cherished notion of "prediction" has been
gradually eroded.
This group uses the term prediction to simply refer to something that is
"known" and as such it is a concept which is pretty shallow since its
verification as a mental product is thereby based on the experience that when
we know something we act as if we were confident that it would happen. The
problem with such concepts like "knowing" or "prediction" is that they -do not-
confirm the efficacy of theories that an AGI program might produce, except in
those circumstances which would be considered narrow AI by this group.
Let me repeat that.The problem with such concepts like "knowing" or
"prediction" is that they -DO NOT- confirm the effaciacy of theories that an
AGI program might produce, except in those circumstances which would be
considered narrow AI by this group.
So sure, when someone points out that the human mind uses "expectation" and
expectation is a little like "prediction" I do agree. But here the word
prediction is just being used to describe "knowing something." There is no
principle of confirmation or disconfirmation of the use of "prediction" that
can be used to produce AGI, except for special cases. After years and years of
the repetition of the word in these types of discussions there is still no AGI
so that should give you a hint about how good an idea it was.
If the use of prediction as a confirming method can only be used in a limited
set of circumstances then its power in these discussions has been so diminished
that it should not be used as if it were a magical concept. Without some
efficacy the word should not be used as a special technical term. The word
should be used in the way it is usually used.
As I implied, Popper originally used the word the concept in a logical model
of scientific theory. If a theory could be used to predict a confirming or
disconfirming observable event then the theory could be disconfirmed by the
failure of the event to occur. (If the event occurred it still might be caused
by a coincidence.)
It is coming back to me. (Or else my creative memory is kicking in.) The
author who popularized the theory of confirmation through prediction had a
model of probability and confirmation by prediction. That model is inherently
contradictory.
It amazes me that you guys don't get this. Jim Bromer
AGI | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
