OpenCog is not single algorithm/method based, which is IMO a qualitative difference from most other approaches. If we distinguish approaches via
A) single sort of complex algorithm at the center, with other stuff in a supporting role B) self-organizing, subsymbolic system, without complex algorithms implemented C) multiple complex algorithms integrated with each other & with a self-organizing, subsymbolic system then OpenCog falls into camp C ... My hypothesis is that the emergent phenomena ensuing from the integration implicit in C will bypass the problems found with scaling systems in category A to deal with human-level AGi problems.... And that the use of complex learning algorithms as well as subsymbolic stuff, will bypass the massively difficult tuning required to get B to work on its own... -- Ben On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > Ben, > > I am in absolute agreement with your very eloquent posting. Just one > question: Doesn't this also apply equally well to your OpenCog approach to > AGI? Indeed, THIS (as described in your posting) has been my primary > objection to the past AGI-related efforts that I have seen. > > Again, very well said. > > Steve > =============== > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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> >> <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
