It’s not the *meaning* of pattern that is relevant, Ben. It’s *examples* of how patterns have any relevance to AGI that you have to produce –= and you never have produced any in this conversation or any other – or any of your voluminous texts.
You have a very vague theory of AGI IOW – yet another “magic sauce” - that has no empirical foundation whatsoever. And the same is true of every theory behind OpenCog. Babbage *was* an empirical thinker – you ain’t. Being empirical – producing and discussing evidence for your theories – is not “sinking so low” – it’s the mark of a serious technologist, as distinct from an academic fantasist. From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:59 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The Only Test of AGI 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 Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:56 PM To: AGI 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 | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
