While I seem to be in a mood to waste more time than I usually would on AGI list discussions, I'm not going to sink so low as to have yet another debate about the meaning of "pattern" with Mike Tintner ;p
Mikey my friend, we will just have to agree to disagree. You can have it your way, and I will have it the right way ;) -- Ben G On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > You seem to have forgotten Ben that “magic sauce” is a term used by > many AGI-ers for the “missing but crucial ingredient of AGI* wh. an AGI > projectbuilder claims he will produce at a later stage from his present > outline but never does. > > You’ve also forgotten how many times you have indeed promised a missing > but crucial ingredient of AGI would be produced at a later stage with some > publication of yours – and never have produced it. > > You have done a QED by now indicating another magic ingredient of AGI, > this time a pattern recognition system . you have never produced any > actual examples of how patterns are relevant to AGI problems, and never > will – just waffled generally. This is complete (if fairly widely-held) > nonsense – > > By definition, an essential requirement of AGI is to solve problems about > actions and environments that do NOT fit existing patterns. By definition > an AGI must acquire new skills and undertake new kinds of actions – > something that presently defies all narrow AI programs. This is a > problematic business – precisely because the new skill/action is NOT like > already known actions – does NOT fit any existing, known pattern. Mastering > a new skill like say the actions of table tennis after tennis, or vice > versa, presents difficulties precisely because the arm and body actions do > not fit the same patterns. Mastering/understanding physics after chemistry > is difficult precisely because the laws of one do not easily fit the > laws/patterns of the other. And so it is with every subject area in > organized knowledge. > > Being able to have a conversation with one person is difficult precisely > he does NOT fit the conversational patterns of others. Every one is > different. Talking to Jim about AGI is different from talking to Matt, or > Pei, or Aaron, etc etc – because each one has a different approach to AGI, > each one is individual, and each one’s idiosyncrasies have to be gradually > identified in order to talk to them. They may share some common elements, > but overall they are very different. > > Nor do the conversations or posts of any individual taken altogether fit a > distinct pattern. We may have distinctive “styles” of conversation, but > those styles are fluid schemas at best, and nothing like the precise > patterns you are talking about – and result in very diverse, multiform > posts. Check your own posts in this or any other thread. I defy you to > identify overall patterns. > > I know that you have never actually applied your pattern theories to > actual AGI problems, just as it was clear from your book on creativity that > you had never applied your creativity theories to any actual creative > problems that you had independently researched. > > You work by adapting other people’s theories – and unfortunately for you, > none of them apply to building a real AGI., esp. patterns and pattern > recognition. > > P.S. Some indication of how AGI’s actually adapt to the new is given in > our talking of “a period of adjustment” being required, of “getting the > hang” of things, and “finding our feet” after stumbling and groping around. > All of this adapting to the new has nothing to do with pattern recognition. > > A GOS must be designed to enable a robot to endlessly *develop* its > actions – endlessly move along *new* lines - not fit its actions to the > same old patterns and lines. That’s narrow AI. > > > > *From:* Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:56 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] The Only Test of AGI > > > >> >> Neither Ben nor anyone else in AGI is directly addressing the problem >> of a take-off system – or indeed has a clue – wh. is why you can >> immediately write off Opencog and other such efforts. They have absolutely >> nothing to do with AGI/ take-off – wh. is also why Ben et al have always >> resisted any form of test – they always have and always will fail any test >> of take-off/generality. (It’s not just me BTW – many have remarked that >> Ben et al’s “magic sauce” is not there – not even the idea of one) >> >> > > The idea that a "magic sauce" is needed for AGI is a mystical delusion, > redolent of vitalism in biology... > > The statement that I resist any form of test is a bald-faced lie. I > don't think that testing a completed human-level AGI is a particularly hard > problem, and I think it's a useful thing to do. The Turing Test is an OK > one (if it does on for an hour or more), or the test of having a robot pass > the third grade, etc. etc. I am skeptical of quantitative metrics for > early-stage partial progress toward human-level AGI, because I haven't yet > seen any that aren't either > > -- requiring a system already 80% of the way to human-level AGI > > -- too easily game-able by narrow-AI systems written especially to pass > the test > > ... > > The magic of general intelligence is simply this: A pattern recognition > system that can recognize patterns in its environment and *itself*, > including patterns regarding which actions tend to achieve which objectives > in which contexts. > > The challenge of general intelligence is: Recognizing a sufficient scope > of patterns, within a relevant and broad set of contexts, within the > limited compute resources available.... > > Meeting this challenge seems, so far as I can tell, to require a fairly > complex and multifaceted software system with interdependent parts; which > makes building AGI a major engineering and algorithmic challenge. > > That's not as romantic as daydreaming about some "magic sauce" that you > can just pour into your robot's head to make its wiring or its software get > smart -- but it's the reality... > > -- Ben G > > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > 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/303/212726-deec6279> | > 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 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
