Sorry for changing the subject a little. A few years ago, I became so tired of hearing people talking about using "prediction" as a basis for AGI I decided to do an experiment with making personal predictions. At first my predictions were so bad that I quickly had to adapt them and make less precise predictions that were based on things that seemed more likely to me. So I was able to use predictions but I found that I also used explanations to explain something that happened and I also was absolutely dependent on something that was not predictive or explanatory at all. I could, for my experiment, privately write some predictions and some explanations about people that I was writing to in one of these groups, but when I was forming the subject matter for the messages that I was sending to them I was not aware that I was using many predictions. If someone was to help me try to find the 'predictions' or 'explanations' that I made in this message for example most of them would be almost incidental to the writing. There are some explanations which are central to this message, but most of the 'predictions' are incidental. They are not used for verification but if some expectation was shattered they would be used for adjusting my expectations.
The concept of predictions in AI was originally introduced as a means of verification of theories about the world but because there are so many routes that misunderstanding can take the dependency of verification on simple prediction is relatively weak because it can only be done well by a highly intelligent being, it cannot be used as the substantial underlying basis for that intelligence. However, I found something that I think was much more interesting in my subjective experiment. What I found was that by formally writing a prediction (or an explanation) about someone I became enlightened, or at least I found enlightenment soon after I wrote my theory down. By writing something down (privately) I found that the commitment to the prediction or explanation somehow forced me to subsequently refine it to make it more likely and more useful. As I tested the theory I found that I was able to develop better insight about people. Part of it was that I was keeping a record about my thoughts and as I refined my theories about a person I was able to talk to them in a way that they found more interesting. But part of it was that after I made a commitment to the theory and because I was able to test my theories (using conversation) my theories about the people I was talking to were based on better insights that I formed serendipitously. I found that my predictions or explanations were very difficult to verify, but as I tried I was able to learn things about the person that were peripheral to the original prediction. Isn't that what happens in these groups? I haven't yet learned how to write an actual AGI program but I have learned a great deal that is peripheral to that aim. So by making the commitment to a theory (or opinion) and writing it down and following up on by trying to test the theory in some way, I found that I was rarely able to use a novel 'prediction' as verification. I was, however, able to learn a great deal about the subject of the theory that was peripheral to the original prediction. Jim Bromer On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > We'll prefer "Explanation" to "Justification" to avoid any undesired > connotations. > > Let's take the next step. We need to make an alternative matrix table > with our requirements as the rows and the potential solution as the columns. > Initially each column should address one requirement so the matrix would > be NxN. But then we would combine the alternatives and collapse the > columns somewhat. Who would like to begin this? > > ~PM. > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:06:04 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > I don't want to quibble but I find that the word 'justification', like the > word 'prediction', when used in these discussions usually sound > exaggerated. Explanation is way of expressing your reasons. You may > explain your reasons for having done something while realizing that they > might not be great reasons and you may even realize that you might have > been influenced by sub-conscious motivations. But yes, since reasons are > sub-verbal and/or subconscious we are not always able to find or express > our reasons for doing something. And since we may not be aware of the > effects of our own actions we may not always be aware of what we are or > were doing! > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > Is that because the justifications are sub-verbal / subconscious? > > ------------------------------ > Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 19:58:11 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Humans cannot always give good reasons for their decisions, but in many > cases they can. So if a person makes a decision based on a reason, or if > they can rediscover the reasons underlying a habituated response, then they > should be able to describe something about those reasons. > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Piaget Modeler > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Once we have a good set of requirements we can begin a design by > finding design > elements that match the requirements, assumptions, dependencies, and > constraints. > > > *Requirements*: > > 1. Efficient Organization > 2. Efficient Execution > 3. Easy to Understand > 4. Supports vast interconnections among concepts > 5. Rapid Execution to continually reevaluate multiple paths > 6. Need to switch search spaces rapidly > 7. Need to expand or restrict search spaces dynamically > 8. Need for concept integration > 9. Need for concept differentiation > 10. Need to fluidly recombine concepts > 11. Need to support simulation and multiple path exploration. > 12. Supports explanation discovery / Reason-based reasoning and > planning. > 13. Should be able to explain reasons for decisions. > > > *Assumptions* > > > *Dependencies* > > > *Constraints* > > > > Anything else to add? Are any of these Assumptions or constraints rather > than requirements? > > Kindly advise. > > ~PM. > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-470149cf> | > 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/303/19999924-5cfde295> | > 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/303/10561250-470149cf> | > 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/303/19999924-5cfde295> | > 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/303/10561250-470149cf> | > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
