On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: What Linas is saying, I think, is that to get a complex multi-component learning system like OpenCog to work, there are many complex "tuning /adapting" tasks to be done.... So he's saying: If we had a "meta-learning" method... as Linas knows, Nil and I worked on a DARPA-funded project on meta-learning last year. Ultimately, I think we can build an OpenCog thinking machine without this kind of metalearning he alludes to. BUT ... absolutely, the further we can go in that direction the better...
Papers and books about meta-cognition are important for students who have not thought about things like that. If a computer program was able to think then it would be able to think about thinking. So while I support the frame work of a higher management system and its ilk I have to conclude that the argument that the feasibility of intelligence is dependent on cognition and the feasibility of cognition is dependent on meta cognition really doesn't cut it. If a program is not able to 'think' then it will not be able to 'think about thinking' and the delusion that by creating some kind of meta-managment system you will finally be able to generate intelligence is not even slightly reasonable. If Linas was wondering about a simple automation system that would be a different kind of thing. But if he is discovering that the learning mechanisms that have been detailed are infeasible without an intelligent entity to shape them for the millions of different kinds of situations that they have to be adapted for than the talk about 'ftuning' and a 'meta-learning' system is childish. Jim Bromer On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > What Linas is saying, I think, is that to get a complex multi-component > learning system like OpenCog to work, there are many complex "tuning > /adapting" tasks to be done.... Each time you want to apply a certain > learning algorithm to a certain sort of problem (such as, the problem of > helping another learning algorithm do its stuff better), you have to tweak > that learning algorithm in certain ways. He's afraid that, in a system > based on the interactions of a lot of different learning algorithms for a > lot of different purposes, this leads to a very large number of > moderately-complex algorithm tuning/adaptation problems. > > So he's saying: If we had a "meta-learning" method for automatically > tuning/adapting a learning algorithm to a new domain and a new sort of > problem, *then* an architecture like OpenCog could be made to work a lot > more tractably. Otherwise, getting it to work is gonna be a long slog of > tuning/tweaking each component for its interaction with each other > component. > > At least, that's my quick gloss of his point. > > I'm unsure of my reaction. Indeed, metacognition is important -- as Linas > knows, Nil and I worked on a DARPA-funded project on meta-learning last > year. (We have an in-progress paper on "meta-learning for feature > selection" in a MOSES context.) On the other hand, the human brain was > honed incrementally by evolution over a long period of time, and evolution > is exactly the sort of algorithm that is able to repetitively carry out the > long slog of tuning/tweaking each component of a complex system for its > interaction with each other component... > > Ultimately, I think we can build an OpenCog thinking machine without this > kind of metalearning he alludes to. BUT ... absolutely, the further we can > go in that direction the better... > > ben g > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> Kindly advise, which component is "The Magic Happens Here"? I didn't >> recognize it on Ben's diagram or mine. >> >> >> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=460040220684646&set=a.217364258285578.55073.203359906352680&type=1&theater >> >> >> Please advise. >> >> ~PM. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:44:11 -0500 >> Subject: [agi] Magic Happens Here [was Re: [opencog-dev] Uber big scary >> monster OpenCog diagram >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> On 12 September 2012 15:36, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> http://goertzel.org/WholeBigOpenCogDiagram.pdf >> >> >> So I got to thinking about the "Magic Happens Here" part of the diagram, >> and I think maybe it got left out of the diagram. >> >> So, for example, I was recently thinking that I could use MOSES to >> automatically learn new link-grammar parse relations. Now, it doesn't >> explicitly have to be MOSES that would do the learning; I suppose that many >> modern-day, reasonably competent learning systems might do the trick: they >> would need only to be able to do some basic modelling of the innards of a >> black box. And it doesn't have to be link-grammar either: some other >> reasonably flexible NLP system would do. >> >> As it became clear as to how to hook these two up, so as to learn new >> rules, I also thought about what it couldn't do ... and realized that I'd >> need some other variants and modifications to handle those cases. So, my >> plan went from hooking up the two things, to realizing that I would need to >> hook them up in three distinct ways. Each different way handles a certain >> generic kind of learning problem, but with a different focus and a >> different output/outcome. And I started grasping that in fact, maybe >> there are 4 or 5 or 6 different other situations to deal with. >> >> And at that point, it gets out of hand -- all of a sudden, I need to >> manually handle a bunch of different learning tasks. Each task may take >> months to code up and make operational. And what if there are more than 6? >> That's when I realized that, in fact, I have a meta-learning problem. >> That is, what I really need is a system that can learn how to learn >> specific learning tasks. *That* is the "Magic happens Here" bubble. >> >> At the moment, I have no clue how to do this meta-learning. But I do >> know where to start: experimental trial and error. Go ahead, hook up moses >> to link-grammar. See what happens. Plug the holes, See if a general pattern >> or paradigm emerges. If, after much work, some meta-pattern becomes >> apparent, then, well, that was the magic part. After that .. who knows. >> But one cannot find out, until one starts trying to build these things. >> >> --linas >> *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> >> > > > > -- > 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/303/10561250-164650b2> | > 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
