Well, I can't provide an example of an AGI program -that actually works - because it is still beyond the fringes of science. However, we have seen expected milestones go by: chess programs that can beat almost all human players, Watson who can beat all human Jeopardy players (so far), cars that drive themselves, toy helicopters that can learn to fly upside down and do other stunts while going through small windows and so on. The problem of finding "an example" of a generalization of all generalizations is a philosophical conundrum. (It cannot be done.) And finding examples that produce an endless variety of transformations is really not the problem we are interested in. We want to find a computer program that is capable of learning -like human beings-. Since this is well beyond our abilities we are looking for ways to get them to display some human-like capabilities of thought. But, while I don't have an example of an AGI program that actually works, I can think about things like a program that can draw a massive variety of types or a program that can output a massive variety of patterns. While the theoretical question was interesting to me (you need to use variable length data fields for the characteristics that you want to use) it is not AI because these "examples" would not be responding to Input Output. So I would not expect anyone to be very interested in an actual program to output a massive variety of visual patterns. I am not going to spend the time to make an example of something which no one would be interested in. Once you change the challenge so that it is becomes: write a program that will create an uncountable variety of patterns based on Input, you have taken the program nearer to AGI because now, part of the challenge is to get it to react to Input-Output in a rational way. The problem is not whether a computer program can potentially create (or model) more patterns then anyone could imagine count or keep track of, but whether or not such a potential could be harnessed to demonstrate reasoned intelligence.
The challenge is interesting. For instance, could I write a program that could create an uncountable variety of patterns based only on images of garbage. Well, if the input images were constrained to images of garbage then yes I could. If the input was unconstrained then no I couldn't because it requires intelligence to identify images of garbage. So I am in an odd situation. I believe I could write a program that produced an uncountable variety of patterns but so what? No one would be interested. It is an interesting challenge because there are some theoretical problems that few people are even aware of, but I am pretty sure that I could do it. Maybe I should try it sometime just to make sure I did figure it out. Jim Bromer On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Jim: The idea is that we are arguing is that computers have a potential to > 'represent' an astounding variety of things and relations. > You seem quite incapable of distinguishing between “computers” and > “programs” *Computers* currently have billions of apps and programs - > potentially if not actually indeed representing all things. Programs – > algorithmic programs – are just complex recipes with an extremely limited > stock of a few ingredients, and zero new elements. > You seem equally incapable of understanding the problem of AGI, which can > be expressed as the incapacity of programs to incorporate any new elements. > Patterns- algorithms – formulae – recipes – all only apply to a limited > stock of elements. > But in your wild imagination they are already all-knowing and > all-encompassing and have already solved the problem of AGI. > You are confusing the recipe with the chef - AGI is about creating a chef > that can create any dish, and mix any new elements into dishes – – unlike > algorithms and patterns which self-evidently have only a very limited set > of elements – and even then run into problems of combinatorial complexity – > the purely narrow AI problem that obsesses you. > Examples, specifics, Jim, and not just waffle – of these all-growing, > all-new-element-producing patterns, and these all-knowing, all-encompassing > algorithms. > You guys are really maintaining absolute nonsense – and you can’t produce > a single example to back up your arguments. > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:28 AM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Randomness: Mathematics as Perceptual Bias > I guess Mike was saying that the variety of patterns that he provided a > link to were, "unlike natural evolution, in which new elements, like eyes, > limbs, opposable thumbs, voiceboxes, etc emerge..." > But again, he is declaring that complex arrangements of cells are > "elements" so even if I misunderstood how he was using the references to > the images of patterns, I am still left with sense that he is not basing > his argument on the idea that there are an infinite number of 'elements' > but on the idea that an infinite number of complexes can emerge. > No one is saying that a computer can truly represent an infinite variety > of anything, no more than we are we saying that a single computer can know > everything. No human being knows everything that human beings have ever > known. The idea is that we are arguing is that computers have a potential > to 'represent' an astounding variety of things and relations. > Jim Bromer > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Mike Tintner >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> A specific pattern – Mandelbrot, Fourier transform, cellular automaton >>> no. 30 etc.. specific. >>> Examples are specific, Aaron, not general. >>> And the “pattern of neuronal firings in your brain” is a fictional >>> product of your imagination. >>> Specifics. Evidence. e.g. >>> https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site= >>> imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1340&bih=690&q=patterns&oq= >>> patterns&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1679.2746.0.3037.8.7.0.1.1.0. >>> 159.516.5j2.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.hHfKyrSHq4M >>> And here are “evolving patterns”, except that they don’t truly evolve >>> with new elements – they aren’t truly “emergent” >>> >> Mike's idea of a "patchwork" is just a fictional product of his >> imagination, if that is the attitude that he wants to take. And Mike's >> reference of the patterns in the images he provides the links to are truly >> formed from non changing elements of pixels of computer imagery. If his >> argument can be exemplified by the seemingly infinite variety of different >> patterns that can be found by searching on Google then that proves that the >> unchanging elements of pixlation can indeed represent the variety of >> different kinds of patterns that Mike is talking about. This seems like a >> contradiction of his basic argument since the question seems to hinge on >> whether computers can potentially -represent- a massive variety of patterns. >> Jim Bromer >> > ------------------------------------------- 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
