Jim, I think we are in agreement here. Computing optimal action without a guiding prediction is NOT easy. I mentioned high speed trading because they appear to be doing just that, albeit within a narrow domain. I suspect that failure to grok this area is just one of many areas where AGI is going to have to make progress before it can become "serious".
Steve ============= On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > High speed trading is something that people are not good at but narrow AI > can be. It has to be narrow to keep it efficient. > Your idea of optimal action in the absence of prediction is a pretty wild > abstraction, and it would be difficult to implement. Just using > correlation for example would tell you a lot about the relations of what > was obvious and previously identifiable but little about the relations of > causation and (ironically) co-occurrence. Correlation can identify perfect > co-occurrence but it cannot be relied on -in itself- to identify imperfect > or conditional co-occurrence. > So for something like correlation to actually work to reliably identify > conditional co-occurrences it has to have some way to identify or speculate > on interactions that may be hidden. (I think Abram was telling me that > hidden Markov processes were capable of doing this but here the guiding > form of a Markov process is a conditional premise of the efficacy of the > method.) > > In order then to generalize this example of effectively using correlation > just to identify interactive co-occurrence I feel the system would have to > be capable of a dealing with a great many possible complications just > to identify the few interactive co-occurrences that might have impact on a > subsystem that is being observed. First, how do you simultaneously watch > multiple subsystems? This is the easy part because our ideas about simple > observations are inherently absurd. A simple system can easily be a > complicated system. This relativistic view is the first clue then to > discovering new ideas about simultaneously watching multiple complex > systems. Many of the systems that can be observed easily are complex > systems. So the real problem is how do we discriminate or recognize subtle > relations that are hidden in the seeming simplicity of an observed event. > For example if a cognitive system was deriving insight from a camera, the > video of an observation event would contain all the complexity that could > be inferred from what the camera could capture. So while a cognitive > system might make jump to some real time conclusions, reanalysis of the > recording of the event might provide more insight from a more sophisticated > cognitive basis. > > Although this sounds like nothing new, it is still new just because no one > has made much progress in identifying how representations of complexity > work. > > Jim Bromer > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Just a comment to inject into this discussion: >> >> Prediction is great when it is possible, but that is rare in our world of >> imperfect information. >> >> Modern economics has brought us the concept of optimal action in the face >> if imperfect information. This leans on concepts like volatility, where >> tiny (and hence unpredictable) contributions can have huge effects. >> >> I think the emphasis should NOT be prediction, but rather on the >> computation of optimal action in the ABSENCE of prediction. Of course that >> is a more complex concept, so it has so far evaded deep discussion here. >> >> Note that this is the stock and trade of high speed trading software, so >> people ARE already making this work in the real world. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Steve Richfield >> ================== >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Infering is a form of carrying knowledge from one place and applying it >>> in a different place or time. >>> >>> >>> This is the real question but it does not provide us with an answer. >>> All the narrow forms of AI do offer solutions to certain kinds of problems, >>> but is there a general way to work from uncertainty (about most every >>> basis to make the determination) toward greater certainty that would allow >>> us to say that a particular kind of knowledge that worked in another >>> situation could work in this situation? If you base inference on >>> similarities then the problem is how do you use automation (in other words >>> a program) to detect similarities without some absolute method that some of >>> the aspects of the two similar events are of a kind? >>> >>> Jim Bromer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Logan, >>>> I also cannot predict the kinds of replies that I will get. >>>> Of course, prediction is something that human beings can do. I >>>> mentioned that in my previous message. However, I do not see this group as >>>> swirling around the question of what kinds of things human beings can do >>>> but around the question of what can we do to make our computer programs act >>>> smarter. In that sense, intelligence is not a product of prediction, >>>> prediction is a product of intelligence. >>>> If anyone has proof that AGI is a product of prediction then he has >>>> solved the problems that are constantly being discussed in this group. >>>> >>>> I think there was another author who popularized probability and >>>> prediction in the 1970s. >>>> >>>> Your definition of inference is interesting and it is a more >>>> sophisticated way of understanding the problem then the usual refrain of >>>> the false promise of probability and prediction. >>>> Jim Bromer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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> >>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >>>>> 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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >> full employment. >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >> 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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
