Logan, Your comments were inappropriate because you showed a lack of understanding of what I was trying to say. So I will try to restate it in a different way.
1. I described a method by which I defined how my hoped for results might initially be confirmed on the basis of the impressions of a group of enthusiasts who thought it was interesting and showed promise. 2. But, assuming that the initial demonstration was weak (and perhaps resembled a narrow AI method), I would then have to demonstrate that I could make incremental improvements and that it could be applied to different IO modalities. (Different Input Output Modalities refers to different kinds of AI problems, like visual, text, numerical, and special problems which combine different modalities.) 3. But then I pointed out that if after a year I did not have anything that even resembled AGI I would have to concede that my ideas did not work. 4. Finally I pointed out that if after 5 months I hadn't even started the program and I was reasonably healthy and had as much free time as I have now that would be a pretty strong indication that I did not have everything figured out and that my plan must of lacked something. Of course I would continue to work on my ideas even if I did not have anything after a year. But I would have to concede that there was something seriously lacking in my plans. Logan's remarks, regardless of his attitude, showed how this group does not quite grasp how the scientific method works. Although I wasn't able to carefully describe my ideas in such a short message and I wasn't able to fill a detailed assessment of predicted results, I did describe a fundamental attitude that I could make a prediction and then accept the results whether I was pleased with them or not. It is true that there would be some sceptics who would not accept any kind of reasonable achievement just as some people deny that Watson was an important step towards AGI. So there would be some people who just won't get it, as there are some people who just don't get the nature of the modern scientific method. The one important detail that I left off my brief message was a description of the case where the results could be used to identify a flaw that could be resolved (without waiting for some future breakthrough). That of course is a most important case of being able to learn from your mistakes. However, I tried to let the reader infer that case from my description of being able to improve on weak results and on generalization by adapting the method for different IO modalities. If you can improve your results or adapt the program to different kinds of situations then you would be fixing flaws and making it more general. Assuming that Logan was trying to be friendly I would say that I believe that I would be able to appreciate weak results even while I was able to recognize that they were weak. So I would probably continue to work on the program even though other enthusiasts were not very interested. However, if I could not make the improvements that would be necessary to convince some enthusiasts then I would have to concede that there was something that I haven't figured out. There is something to the Turing Test even though it is not enough to help us solve the complications that we cannot presently solve. So it might not a truly compelling demonstration but other AGI enthusiasts would become interested in what I was doing if I truly have the basics figured out. Jim Bromer On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I believe I can write a simple AGI program in a year. >> > > Ha, ya sure you can, > k go ahead. > > I'm sure you'll be more humble after you do ;-), > write an AGI program for a year that is. > > >> It would not convince the worse skeptics but I would hope to show >> programmers and enthusiasts that it can: >> >> 1. Learn the basics of a human language or a primitive version of one. >> >> 2. Learn simple things from discussion. >> >> 3. Learn to make (simple non-mathematical) correlations (between >> 'objects' of discussion) and generalize based on what it learned through >> language. >> 4. Learn the limitations on generalization and on the use of correlations >> as objectives. >> 5. Use reason-based-reasoning. >> >> However, it will not be perfect, and it will become overwhelmed by the >> complexity of acquired knowledge. >> >> >> >> Now let's say that 5 months go by and I haven't started the program. >> > > Yo Jim don't delay, start today! :-) > > >> Well, if I am still reasonably healthy and have the same amount of free >> time that I have now that would indicate that my ideas probably weren't >> that great. Does that prove that my ideas are wrong? No, but it would >> indicate that I do not have every concept that I need to actually start >> working on the program. >> > > Pst, Agile, rapid-prototyping, simply make a small prototype, then work > your way up. > > >> In other words, it would stand as evidence that there is something >> important that I haven't figured out. >> > > nah, there is no excuse for not producing some kind of code. > > >> >> >> Now let's say that I did get the basic program together but it doesn't do >> anything intelligent. That would be a strong indication that my ideas >> did not work, that I was missing something. >> > > it's just a prototype. > > >> >> >> Let's say that I felt that it was working but no one in this group (for >> example) agreed with me. Then I would have to improve on it in order to >> convince a few people. I don't feel that I would have to convince >> everyone but I would have to be able to convince a few people that my >> program was actually working - at least to the extent that I am describing >> in this message. >> > > Hey, most important is to convince at least yourself, > and then use it as something useful, > if you get benefit, and share that benefit, > then other people will be keen to know also. > > > >> >> >> Now let's say that a few people thought it was working as far as it went, >> but most people simply did not accept that it was a working AGI program. >> That would be a difficult situation but the way I could validate my sense >> that it was working (to the limited extent that I described above) would be >> to modify it to show that it could learn using with other modalities (using >> other forms of IO) and show that I was able to make actual improvements on >> the different versions. At some point a few of the skeptics would start >> to recognize that it was essentially learning new things in the way I have >> described. >> >> >> >> Jim Bromer >> > > Really, are you building an AGI or seeking approval? > Those are generally different things. > > If you have an idea, > you think worthwhile, > start doing it. > > function name; description > //pseudo-code > //input, > //output, > //algorithm, > // - > // - > // - > //--------------- > code > > go ahead, > start now! :-) > *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
