I agree with Jim that there is too much focus on "prediction". Though here the obsession might be related to how Ray Kurzweil, a man famous for his accurate predictions, chooses to define intelligence as the ability to predict.
If prediction was a normal thing, then Ray wouldn't have gotten famous for it. Amongst us ordinary humans, at least around here in Canada, and on the internet, people rarely if ever mention the word "prediction". And very few if anyone claims to make accurate predictions. Kurzweil mentions prediction as necessary for things like hunting or gathering food. For instance projecting the vector of an animal as is runs away, or infering that if fruit was gathered in an area at a time of year, it may be available at same place next year at similar time. However projecting, infering, and predicting are 3 different words, with different meanings. Projecting is a form of planning ahead. Infering is a form of carrying knowledge from one place and applying it in a different place or time. Predicting is a form of prophecy or foretelling based on special knowledge. Most people infer and project, but very few predict. For instance in New Age cultures, many humans have had their careers broken by making false predictions. Also no one (but Ray) claims to make predictions based on intelligence, but usually based on things like intuition, and telepathic communications. Maybe I'm committing the fallacy of making a distinction without a difference. Perhaps all those words mean the same thing. Though I'd like to state that there are other ways of getting food, that don't relate to predictive ability. For instance how does an animal get food, they find a signature of the food-item, for instance a smell, sound or shape, and then move towards it, until their jaws are clenching it. I guess you could say they "predicted" the food was there, based on the signature. As it certainly is possible that following a signature, will lead to a non-food item, for instance if the signature is lost, or is being produced by something else, i.e. carnivorous flower. It is also possible that everything can be classified as prediction, for instance when saying the alphabet, we predict what the next letter is, before saying it. This would mean that every hello world program uses prediction, as it loads the hello world string, before printing it to screen. *shrugs* it depends, do we want prediction to lose all meaning, by applying it just about anything. Or do we want to be specific with what we are saying, and only use words like "prediction" in the way that non AGI mailing list people use it, as a shorter-term version of prophesy, based on special knowledge. For instance even though I consider myself intelligence, I can't predict the content of any reply or if there even will be replies, though I can infer that there may be replies, as this is a mailing list, where people often reply. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-6ef01b0b> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
