Of course, Jim. You're absolutely right. I couldn't possibly have known all that stuff. It's not like it was stuff that only requires common sense or something. I'm being absurd, I have no social skills, I can't comprehend your subtle points, I have a pretty stupid ego, I'm in denial, I don't get anything until you enlighten me, and I am so over & done with this conversation. Good night.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > But you have not thought of everything that I said before I said it. You > have interpreted what I have said so that it fit into your notions of the > subject. The details are what you have missed because, for example, it is > not true that my "extensive verbiage can be easily summed up...[with]...The > proof in in the pudding." > > To take the most trivial example, testing during development does not > constitute a "proof" but only evidence for initial feasibility and that > this or that works and this or that does not. This is a trivial insight > but one that is true but which you were evidently unable to get until after > I said it. > > There is something really lacking in your social skills. So your > insistence that you will eventually figure it out because you will not quit > is just something that does not concern me. I assume that you will say > something that interests me in the future but the idea that you knew > everything I said even before I said it is one of the most absurd things > anyone in these groups has ever said. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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> >> <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/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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
