Does this have anything to do with AGI or are you asking what we think of your development style? On Dec 28, 2012 9:45 AM, "Jim Bromer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/20804060-8197d5d3> | > 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
