Mike, >Showing 1 - 12 of 23,822 Results
>Please explain the definitive criteria/halting criteria for examining 23,822 results - and for pursuing further results, as in "machine learning" and the many other terms you might create >both for Amazon and searching on Google. >I would argue that there are actually a potential infinity of alternative searching methods - please explain why there are not, why we can all be satisfied with your single method (wh. >actually doesn't specify halting criteria). >Would you argue there Is one best method of searching any space/frame of options in computer programs? The best method is pick some of the items on top (the topmost is "the best, most important, newest..."), and stop when you have collected as much as you've wanted (that's a latent variable, the searcher knows how many books he want). That's the super complex giga intelligent algorithm you can't get. Humans do not examine 23822 results, they examine a few on the top. Nobody would check all, she couldn't focus for so long, and she wouldn't do also because the ones who'd do such a query would have enough of experience to know it's meaningless (and has too much other things to do), and that things which are on-top, most popular are usually "most important" or "the best" according to the popular opinion. Also there are links "sort by date", "sort by popularity", "rating" etc. - pretty obvious tools for humans to decide, when they are not experts in the field. One who's searching books like this is apparently not an expert in that field (at the moment of search), so she wouldn't know that the book on top is not "modern", for example, and would just pick it, because it has high rating, is "modern", popular and very importantly - appears on the top and engages and satisfies her attention immediately. Google may return 1000000000 results, 99.999999% of people will click on a result on the first page (even the first few results), and the 0.000000001% sometimes would click on a link on any of the first few pages, if they fail to find what they wanted, the criteria for halting is to get something that's related to your search, and the most general the query is (such as ""good new books"), the easiest is to find something to match it, if you want. Todor "Twenkid" Arnaudov http://research.twenkid.com http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > *>What are the definitive criteria for halting in these real world > problemsolving activities?* > > The "definitive criteria" for a given agent* are quite simple. //The agent > and his mind and experience should be defined, of course. > > *>Er, there are none.* > > I don't think so, they are rather obvious. > > The complete details are in each one's head (and the details of the > location, like the specific street, which also guide agent's activities, > such as if there's a dead-end, of course the agent can't go on). > They depend on his or her entire brains and experience - that's right. > > Also - brain has several tangled subsystem, which are confusing each other > and has different priorities, different "memories, different > representations, and different "rationality", which is converged to "one" > by the integrity of the body. Neocortex doesn't understand precisely > what's going on below, and different parts of neocortex don't understand > precisely why they receive signals that they recive. > > The "formula" for definining each of this is big and has many "latent" > variables which are known only for the internals of the control-causality > unit. > > I have discussed this in the references I posted in the previous message. > > There you are an example for one of your cases (would take too much typing > for all): > > *>5."Shop on Amazon for some good new books on AI"* > * > * > It'd include opening a browser, seeing the cursor pointing an icon, > feeling a click, seeing the windows was open; > If the browser was already running - locate the browser on the taskbar, or > point the cursor on the address bar or search bar. > > In those steps, "locating" the browser is reducible down to mere matching > for memories and current experience. > > Then typing a search query or tha address or a bookmark (again, criteria > are simple: have an intent to type the address or invoke particular web > site, then see the sensory input matching the intent). > > Then type the query "AI" or "AI books", see the list. Browse the list. > Click on the top pages. Click on "most popular pages". > > In this part one of the "halting criteria" are again: > > "Typing" means intending to type a word/key. "Intentions" is a set of > planned matches of inputs and experience. > > Typing a key means to match and to coordinate/juxtapose current > sensory-motor experience of moves/touch/vison with past experience > (intentions - records), which confirm the successfulness of execution of > each other. > > Criticism: "Nooo... We all the time do something new, it's all different" > > Answer: Not really. All humans do is adjusting the coordinates of the body > with vectors of motion. Grasping, rotating hand, stretching an arm, > back;rolling eyes, open a mouth, move the tongue so and so, which is > coupled with speed and sequencing all the moves, and adjusting the moves > depending on sensory experience. That's all we do, and all we can do, > > *Back to the keyboard sequence:* > > If one tries to hit a key there's no touch sensation and the hand > "dives"down and doesn't meet something to stop it, that's an indication > that's the move was wrongly conducted. > The one knows that it's wrong very easily - this experience doesn't match > the intended one, in previous times hitting a key comes together with > feeling a key, particular sound, particular tactile sensation, particular > proprioceptive sensation (the finger stops moving, even tough there's force > applied on it to press down), the image on the screen is changing as > intented (an intended symbol appears - I won't dive here into the symbols). > > If the one is a touch typer, she would turn her sight down to the keyboard > to see what's wrong in the coordinates of her hand, and the relative > coordinates of her hand to the keyboard. > Then when getting the location of the keyboard and the hand, would reissue > coordinated motion with intention to hit a particular button, and also may > include visual monitoring in this case to assure the trajectory of finger > tip reaches to plane of the key. The "click" sound, the appearance of a > symbol on the screen etc. > > If there's a list with books - if one's searching for "AI books", she's > supposed to know what an "AI Book" or a "Book" looks like on Amazon, such > as - a picture of the cover, a title (text which has larger font than the > rest of the text in the section; a text which is next to the picture of the > cover; a picture of a cover is a picture with a title, which matches the > title which is aside in the closest region;... etc. - there are many > details.) > > Then clicking on some of the titles - that means, locating the cursor on > the title, the graphical image of the cursor to change its coordinates in > the visual field so that its arrow/active point touches the pixels of the > target title. > > Then clicking, which means pressing a particular mouse button, which > generally means to apply force to that button which is perpendicular to the > plane on which the mouse lays. > > Then the web page on the browser should change - if it doesn't change, > that means the click was not completed or there was something wrong. > > There should be so and so image, contents, etc... > > (...) > > There's one brain-induced criteria for halting such searching queries -- > the time that your conscious can focus on this activity. > Also, the moment when mind decides that "that's not searching anymore, now > I'm reading the book". > > That requires the conscious, the high levels of causality-control to set a > variable saying "OK, I'm ready now, let's go reading this great book I > found!" > > Yes, this is partially arbitrary, but it's so because it's not essential - > the definition of "reading", "searching", etc. are high level and can have > arbitrary or non-essential components. > The labels of the activities don't matter. What matters is the content, > like what I explained above with the sensory-motor matching - it goes for > any kind of activities and tasks, just have to change the sensations, > modalities, particular records, and the sequences of those. > > > *>You can and will set up criteria - but they will be arbitrary (if > probably reasonable), they will be imprecise, they will conflict with other > criteria, and you will change or modify them tomorrow - * > *>as you have your whole life. (And there are no halting criteria for > arriving at new criteria).* > * > * > Yes, they may be changing, and there's nothing wrong with it. The > essential (sensory-motor matching) is not changing. > And yes, some of the criteria are "еmotional", depend on current feelings, > current mood, current or recent social interaction etc. etc. > > There are halting criteria for new criteria, when current fail/halt too > much (for a given limit - it's defined in the internals of the evaluator), > or when they bore you, or when they work too well, etc. > > *>Real world activities are a matter of creative, artistic judgment, not > rational, scientific judgment. * > * > * > In the articles/works I linked last time there are discussions on > "Rational", also "simple" or "intentional". "Rational" is not just > something dull, extremely simple written in a few letters or a short > formula, and it's not something that's obvious all the times, that doesn't > require context etc. > > The "irrational" human behavior is a behavior that the observant doesn't > understand. For example phobias. A little child had a stressful experience > about something, and then she fears it when something reminds her of it. > There's NOTHING irrational here, for the brain subsystem that conducts it > this is a correct behavior, aimed to force the child to avoid the threat. > It's neocortex and brain's fault that neocortex fails to understand it (and > may need medical help) - it receives signals for fear, which means > "danger", so it makes body to run away. > > It's "irrational" namely if somebody looks at the problem more abstractly > that the problem is posed. > > I also don't agree with the common opinion that "rational"and "scientific" > means not from the real world. > > Science is based on the real world, it's derived from it, it's justyfied > by experience and aimed to predict the real world and to model it as > intended (predicted) - it does pretty well and scalable the job. > > >*We can go through the vast list of human real world activities, one by > one, and you will find * > *>no "formulae", no [step-by-step] rules anywhere in the culture/society. > People may tell you they have the "formula" for success in these > activities, but it won't be what any AI-er would * > *>recognize as a formula or algorithm - just vague, general prescriptive > principles.* > * > *I don't think so, the core principles are straight: to match intended to > perceived (that's the criteria for success). > "Intended" itself are records of perceived, that's part of the real world > grounding. > > *>Real world reasoning and real world activities are of a whole > different REALM/WORLD to the rational problemsolving of narrow AI, logic, > maths etc.* > > Science and technology are exactly real world problem solving, and they > have systematically developed and applied methodologies. > > > -- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov > http://research.twenkid.com > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com > > > > - *From:* "Mike Tintner" <[email protected]> > - *To:* <[email protected]> > - *Subject:* Re: [agi] Real World Reasoning > - *Date:* Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:11:00 +0100 > > > *Todor:There are always criteria for halting* > ** > *Problem Activities:* > ** > *1."Walk down your local high street."* > ** > *2."Let's have a conversation about AGI".* > ** > *3."Have sex with your girlfriend."* > ** > *4. Discuss: "Boris has delusions of grandeur."*** > ** > *5."Shop on Amazon for some good new books on AI"* > ** > *6."Write a post in reply to this one."* > ** > *7."Read this morning's newspaper."* > ** > *What are the definitive criteria for halting in these real world > problemsolving activities?* > ** > *Er, there are none.* > ** > *You can and will set up criteria - but they will be arbitrary (if > probably reasonable), they will be imprecise, they will conflict with other > criteria, and you will change or modify them tomorrow - as you have your > whole life. (And there are no halting criteria for arriving at new > criteria).* > ** > *Real world activities are a matter of creative, artistic judgment, not > rational, scientific judgment. We can go through the vast list of human > real world activities, one by one, and you will find no "formulae", no > [step-by-step] rules anywhere in the culture/society. People may tell you > they have the "formula" for success in these activities, but it won't be > what any AI-er would recognize as a formula or algorithm - just vague, > general prescriptive principles.* > ** > *Real world reasoning and real world activities are of a whole different > REALM/WORLD to the rational problemsolving of narrow AI, logic, maths etc. > * > ** > *The latter is deterministic, structured activity and problemsolving in > artificial environments, the real world is free, unstructured activity and > problemsolving in real, unstructured environments (and is v. commonly > described in such terms).* > ** > *The latter is where s.o. decided "*this* is the way we are going to > count/calculate/spell/build a Lego house/locomote through a warehouse or a > rail network/think about a problem... - and that's the 'right' and only way > to do it" The real world is where there are multiple ways to > count/calculate or do anything else - and potentially an infinity of ways, > incl. new and better ways.* > ** > *Welcome to the real world.* > ** > *P.S. Patchworks are a formalisation of real world, creative activities > and products - look again at those patchworks, and you will see there are > no criteria for determining what parts, structure or form your next > patchwork in the series should take (unlike your next variation on an > existing pattern). Patchworks are free - free form, free structure, free > parts - within loose constraints or boundaries. Each new patchwork in a > collection can have multiple and potentially infinite new forms,structures > and parts. There are no criteria for halting in producing them - or indeed > in writing a program or any work of art.* > * > * > * > * > -- > -- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov > http://research.twenkid.com > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com > > -- -- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov http://research.twenkid.com http://artificial-mind.blogspot.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
