Much better! Yes, I get it, and yes, I already got it before you said it (though I didn't know that's what you were trying to say). You're extensive verbiage can be easily summed up: *The proof is in the pudding.* I never claimed to have everything figured out. I simply have a plan, and I strongly believe that plan will lead me to eventual success, even if you're unconvinced -- and you're quite welcome to be skeptical, by the way; it won't hurt my feelings. I'm confident of my plan because I take great pains to think of every possible requirement ahead of time, which explains the "I thought of that already" phenomenon that seems to bother you so much. There is nothing wrong with thinking ahead, though.
No, I can't test the entire system yet, because I haven't gotten that far. There's a lot of underlying work that has to be done first, and it's not just a matter of whipping something up over the course of a few months just because I know where I'm going with it. Nor is it a matter of immediately testing my ideas, apart from the entire system, because in order to test them I have to finish the underlying infrastructure first. However, I understand the importance of testing, and I am indeed testing my system as I go -- at suitable points along the way -- to verify that it works before I build more on top of it. And on those occasions where I run into a fundamental flaw that prevents me from moving forward, I recognize it as such and revise my design and code until the issue is resolved. This is why I can say I'm sure I'll eventually get there, given the time; it's simply because I won't quit until I make it, even if I have to start over from scratch, not that I think I'll have to. So, in summary, I am confident, but not delusional, and it's fine if you disagree with my assessment of my chances of success, because it doesn't actually affect my chances of success. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > We all know that our projects are not working at human-level capacity. So > how could you test the essential characteristic of the program if you only > have a limited 'capacity' to try it out on? This is the essential question > of testing during development. Saying that if an algorithm works then it > works and if it doesn't then it needs some more work is not an adequate > test of whether or not the essential quality of an AGI is achievable using > your ideas. There is not an easy answer to this question but I can at > least try to start to answer it. > > Suppose that someone demonstrated that his numerical algorithm, which used > averaging and weighting was able to learn to speed up, slow down and steer > a remote controll car based on some kind of numerical feedback > for different goals. Once done, once the program showed that it could > control the car adequately for each learned trip how would the programmer > show, given the constraint of his computational resources, that the the > essential characteristics of the program was truly AGI? He would, for > example, have to show that the learning could be used in planning tor new > trips. But then he would have to show that his program could work with > other kinds of problems including problems that used different IO > modalities. How does a purely numerical program solve word-based problems > for instance? If the programmer thinks it could be done then this would be > a requirement to start to show that his program had adequate generality to > work on this program. > > While many people say their program would be able to work with different > kinds of modalities (with different kinds of problems) the scientific proof > is making it do so. It is not enough to say that we are creating the > program to do exactly that when that is the claim that is actively being > questioned. Can't you guys get that? To say that yeah we already thought > of that is pure nonsense. What I am questioning here is not whether or not > you guys get this on a superficial level but whether or not you guys get > that the claim that you already have thought of a general untried theory > does not stand in for adequate testing methodology. To say that we already > know that is a little like saying that we already know that the program > would have to be just about capable of thinking like a human being to > demonstrate true AGI. Well, so what? Of course you already know that you > [more colorful language deleted]. If, for instance, you have a > careful algorithm worked out which you claim that you could show the > essence of AI generality, then what do you have to test the untried > algorithm out with? The claim that you have it all worked out means that > you can get the coding done in a few months. The belief that your carefully > worked out method is going to work without substantial development is > delusional. If you have it all worked out but cannot test it because it > will take a year of development then what could you do to begin testing it > now? If you seriously think that you have it all figured out (except for > the tweaking) then you should be able to contrive all sorts of small tests > that will show almost immediately if your ideas would work or if they would > need a lot more work. But it would have to be done in a way to show the > potential to work within a little complexity. Did you get what I just said > even before I said it? > Jim Bromer > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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
