So in other words, the system needs to identify the problem and its solution space, not just the solution, and you think we're taking the problem & solution space for granted. While your point is correct, I don't think it's a valid assumption that you're the only one here who sees it that way.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre On Oct 30, 2012 10:35 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Aaron, You’re being too literal – AFAIK all AGI projects involve systems that learn – that’s a given. What I’m saying is that if you examine the systems, you will find that the foundations and framework of learning are set by the designer – so the system knows what it needs to know/learn. In that sense it has full knowledge. Real AGI’s have to learn what to learn as they go along – and gradually build and change paradigms of their activities – and have to select from conflicting, competing paradigms. That’s what you’re doing now as you decide how to prosecute building an AGI system, that’s what you did as you decided how to have sex, or how to play football, or have a conversation. I am tempted here – off the top of my head – to draw a crude analogy with vision. All AI vision systems AFAIK assume a passive retina that is imprinted with information and that passively and automatically processes information. But the reality of real AGI vision is that you also have a fovea which has continuously to decide what parts of an image to look at - and you keep learning about how to look at things throughout your life – what “points of view” to assume. This whole top layer is missing from AI’ers’ thinking AFAIK. From: Aaron Hosford Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:15 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The Fundamental Misunderstanding in AGI [was Superficiality] You consistently overgeneralize, Mike. All AGIers do this. All AGIers fail to do that. If we all did things the same, there would be no point in this list. Your opinion as to what needs to be done (and the reasons for it), when stated clearly, is welcome, but your overgeneralizations and assumptions about our failure to do things you deem necessary, and your demands that we change just because you think we should, tend to receive negative responses. I'm not sure you've noticed or care, but I'm throwing it out there in the hope that it's former. Please stop assuming that you personally have full knowledge into what we are doing or how we are doing it, what our plans entail, or how limited we are in our ability to flex as the need arises. Engineering/design moves forward in fits and starts. Progress halts when a new, unsolved aspect of the problem crops up, and then leaps forward when a solution is found. This is happening for each of us who is actually doing anything with our ideas. If/when each of us runs into a problem that can only be solved a certain way, we will stop and reconsider until we have found that way. Saying that we are all incapable of seeing the light (unlike yourself) is an insult to our intelligence and intellectual integrity. We are not blind. You simply haven't convinced us, and likely won't until convincing proof arises, which is only a matter of time if you're right. At that point, should it occur, most of us will modify our designs accordingly and continue on about our business as before, just as we've done with countless other issues that have cropped up. Possibly a temporary challenge, but in the end, No Big Deal. In my own system -- and I'm sure I'm not alone -- fluidity is a core design principle, whether or not you see that. I specifically do not assume a "full knowledge/fully developed mind". I consider learning from experience to be fundamental to all intelligence. So when you make these broad, sweeping statements about all AGIers and all AGI projects, you are making patently false statements about things you personally know very little about. You have not seen my code. You haven't paid attention to my design. And you have no idea what's in my head or how I approach things because you don't understand what I'm saying when I explain things to you. What you personally and specifically are doing is assuming your own "full knowledge", as if you have perfect insight and complete information about each and every one of us, which quite honestly is ridiculous. This is why you get negative responses when you aren't outright ignored. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Mike A: All of Mike T's arguments seem to me to stem from a standpoint of extreme empiricism. He doesn't seem to acknowledge anything other than precisely what is under consideration. Even though a chair top can look different in all cases, in all cases there IS a constant, and that is that the essence of a chair persists. Philosophers have long fought with these issues, and as most know it was Kant who came closest (arguably) to reconciling the empiricists and the rationalizers. No I’m not a pure empiricist. (The philosophical/psychological background is loosely important – recent comments seem unaware that this is one of the most controversial areas). The difference is indeed about rationality – about what *kind* of schema/classificatory devices the mind (human or any real world mind) must impose on its images of objects. Rationality – and everyone here, except for me, is in effect a rationalist – presupposes a CONSTANT schema – just as you have said, and just as Plato implied 2,500 years ago. That’s because you are still intellectually living in the age of text, where everything you see is constant and unchanging. Move into the new millennium of movies, which are now a sine qua non, and you realise that everything is FLUID/MOVING – and different individual versions of things are different from (and in effect fluid versions of) others. There is no constant, essential waterdrop or human being, or chair or apple – especially in a world in which all things may be and usually are transformed by external means in all kinds of way – like being stepped on, smashed, burned or fragmented - if you just look, that lack of a constant is self-evident. But you don’t look – you a priori seek to impose the constant frameworks of language, maths and logic on a fluid world – determined to defend them to the death – despite the fact that they obviously are a complete, never failing to fail, bust for conceptualisation/recognition and anything AGI. For a fluid, transformational world and objects, you need fluid, transformational schemas – but there is nothing in the “languages” you know about them, and you’re not open to new ideas. Fluid schemas are doubly essential because – the other thing that all here forget – an AGI of any kind must get to know and classify objects *piecemeal/gradually*, developmentally. The first chair or dog you see may not be at all a typical or common one. All the current approaches to AGI assume a *full knowledge/fully developed mind* - with well structured concept graphs and a fully developed grammar - which has in effect already learned more or less all it really needs to know - quite, quite absurd. Every approach in the field is only appropriate to a fully knowledgeable narrow AI routine/subsystem, not to a real world AGI, complete system gradually, fluidly getting to know the world. AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
