There's a general fallacy that misleads many AGI people, of the following form ...
" -- Capability or method X, if you could do it incredibly (i.e. unrealistically) well, would enable arbitrarily great general intelligence -- Simple versions of X, seem to lead to interesting "narrow AI" behaviors THEREFORE... -- By pursuing more and more complex versions of X, we can get high levels (e.g. human-level) of real-world general intelligence " In the case we're discussing here X = Prediction .. In other cases, X = logical reasoning, or pattern recognition, or automated program learning, or simulation, etc. etc. Unfortunately, things just don't work that way ;/ ... ben On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
