Well, it is obviously useless for me to try to convince Ben of this, so I will end this criticism by saying to everyone else that Ben demonstrates my point when he states:
But remember this: if OpenCog **never** produces any compelling demonstration, this will not disprove the underlying design or ideas whatsoever. The failure to produce a highly intelligent OpenCog system, does not disambiguate between the options 1) The OpenCog design is not workable 2) Ben failed to gather enough human or financial resources to get the OpenCog system sufficiently implemented and tested and taught, to make it do highly intelligent things. It shows that Ben's most important use of predictions are not falsifiable or evidentiary based and therefore if he relies on 'prediction' in his programming it will be unlikely that it will be able to discern a valid 'prediction' from an invalid 'prediction'. Ben does not use evidentiary methods. If we could come back here a hundred years from now and we learned to program the computers of that future we could almost certainly create our own AGI programs. However, the argument that we were essentially relying on the ideas that we are working on now would be absurd. There are going to be methods that will be developed in the next hundred years that will make our ideas feasible. I was always interested in the methods that might make AGI feasible within the next few years and my first guess is that someone who is able to accept the results of scientific experiments is more likely to help us discover those methods than someone who isn't. Yes there has to be some leeway when looking at the results of an experiment. But there also has to be some constraint on the demands for more more more without some some some results. Jim Bromer On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim Bromer, > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Once we can make a compelling demonstration that genuinely showcases >> synergetic interaction of various cognitive processes in OpenCog, we will >> do so; and that will indeed be quite satisfying. The fact that you, or >> other skeptics, think this is taking longer than it should, isn't >> particularly important to me.... You understand neither the underlying >> concepts nor the practical obstacles... >> >> ---------------------------- >> Why would you make a petty personal comment when you were handling the >> criticism so well up until then? >> Let's see: I understand neither the underlying concepts nor the practical >> obstacles... >> > > That's not a petty personal comment. I really don't think you understand > the concepts underlying OpenCog (as a particular AGI design), nor the > practical obstacles that we face in implementing it. > > > This isn't Ben Goertzel Bashing. >> > > Jim: There are loads of other AGI researchers in the world, but you and > the other small crew of AGI list regulars like to repetitiously criticize > me and my work, simply because unlike most of the other AGI researchers in > the world, I have chosen to remain on this list and occasionally pay > attention to it ;p > > If I signed off this list (as I have often felt inclined to do), then > picking on my work and ideas would get boring to you -- just as you folks > seem to be bored with picking on the work of Joscha Bach, Itamar Arel, Stan > Franklin, Dileep George, Ray Kurzweil, Nick Cassimatis and loads of other > AGI researchers out there who are working on their own proto-AGI systems > and have published some of their ideas.... > > I have learned nothing substantial, ever, from the criticisms of my work > on this email list. I have learned plenty from critiques of my work and > related constructive suggestions, delivered to me privately by other AGI > researchers in the world who do not have patience for this list. > > > >> I am trying to help you deal with the obvious fact that your approach to >> AGI hasn't worked yet and therefore there is probably is a major problem >> that you haven't worked out. >> > > That's pretty stupid reasoning, Jim. OpenCog is a fairly large design, > and only a portion of it is implemented. The theory underlying OpenCog > quite clearly suggests that, given the portion that has been implemented so > far, we should not expect any dramatically intelligent functionality. > Maybe the underlying theory is wrong. But the work done so far, does not > suffice to falsify it -- because the portion of OpenCog implemented so far > is too partial. > > > You make the claim that you will be able to show a compelling >> demonstration. Ok, when is this going to happen? What will it show? If >> you aren't able to make a deadline then what were you able to show in your >> demonstration? >> >> > The quality and potential of the OpenCog AGI design is quite independent > of my capability to predict the progress rate of the current group of > humans working on the OpenCog code... > > The compelling demonstrations I am working toward are: > > 1) A video game agent that holds intelligent, interesting, creative > English conversations about what it's doing and seeing in the video game > world > > 2) A mobile robot that holds intelligent, interesting, creative English > conversations about what it's doing and seeing in its robot lab > > The fact that I don't care about boiling these down to quantitative > metrics, doesn't eliminate their potential compellingness as demonstrations. > > > >> I will keep this message as a draft and post it again next year and every >> year until you make your compelling demonstration. >> Jim Bromer > > > Be my guest , good sir ;) > > But remember this: if OpenCog **never** produces any compelling > demonstration, this will not disprove the underlying design or ideas > whatsoever. The failure to produce a highly intelligent OpenCog system, > does not disambiguate between the options > > 1) The OpenCog design is not workable > > 2) Ben failed to gather enough human or financial resources to get the > OpenCog system sufficiently implemented and tested and taught, to make it > do highly intelligent things > > ... > > -- Ben G > > > *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
