I'm going to make a prediction about my own project: It has taken me a year already, just laying the foundation, and I am not done yet. I am only just getting to the point where I can start to write and test code that actually does things remotely comparable to verbal/symbolic thinking. Even if I don't need to extend or completely rewrite the underlying framework due to some unforeseen issue, I predict it will take at least another year before I start to see any fruitful results out of the system, and more years still before the system starts to grow beyond the AGI equivalent of infancy. I think AGI is just too big of a problem to see instant results. Your own attempt could be seen as an attempt to falsify that last statement. I hope you succeed. I look forward to seeing your working AGi program in a year's time.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > We are almost finished with two weeks of the new year. I said that I was > going to make a prediction about being able to get an AGi-Lite program > working within a year in order to demonstrate how an actual prediction like > this can be used as the basis for drawing conclusions of the effectiveness > of one's own theories. I agree that you cannot expect results in set > period of time but I was able to create other useful theories based on > using different kinds of reasoning on the prediction. The question now is > whether or not I can accept the results of my own experiments. > > For instance, I said that if I was truly confident that I knew how to > create an AGI program (even an AGi-Lite program or AGi as I called it) then > I would be extremely motivated to get going on this project. So then, I > reasoned, if two weeks went by and I did not even have the user interface > done then this would be indicative that I wasn't quite as motivated as my > hubris would suggest. Well, I took the database definitions and the user > interface from the remains of an old program that I had abandoned then > salvaged a number of years ago and started working on it. It was much more > complicated than I remembered and even though I haven't been able to save > any data with it yet, it is slowly coming back to me. So yes, I had a > fundamental user interface within two weeks, and while that does not show > anything about whether my AGi ideas will work or not, it does show that I > have a fundamental enthusiasm and confidence in my theories. I have proven > nothing about my AGi theories, but I did take one fast indication of a > potential problem off the table. My conscious and my unconscious or > semi-conscious impressions of what I am doing are in sync. On the other > hand, since I did just grab a program out of the attic I should have made > more progress than I have. Two weeks is1/26 of the way to my > predicted goal. I also realized that I could begin making some very basic > AGi experiments using the text on the web and I feel that I should have > started that by now. > > So prediction - (including prediction as a nexus of potential progress > overlayed with the nexus of dynamically developing plans) -is useful to > me. I can now use the goals - the original one and the new one produced by > a realization that I could start some initial testing using the web - to > create a new schedule that will provide me at a tiny bit more insight into > how my plans are starting to unfold. At this stage I haven't gotten any > results on any AI / AGI theories but if I am able to start testing one or > two of my ideas within the next two weeks I should have some kind of > results to examine. One thing I did learn was that to get an advantage on > the preliminaries it is nice to have something - that had been salvaged for > just such a situation - to use to jump into the fun part of the puzzle a > little faster. And that is a strategy that I can use in the next stage of > my planning. Instead of writing a web-crawler (which is what I would like > to do) I can just copy some text from various web pages and then paste them > into the user interface on my salvaged program and test some elementary > text searches to see if one of my ideas can actually be made to work. So > based on my experiences during the first two weeks of working with a > schedule I have developed a more efficient method of getting to the lowest > levels of the game. I still want to write a web crawler but I can do that > when I learn more about it. > > So the next two weeks: That will be 1/13 of the way to the end of the > year. I better get going on this. (That is a familiar example of > how prediction and using the actual results of your efforts can drive > insight by the way). So I will like to get the bugs out of my salvaged > program and begin testing the database operations with automated methods > during the next 2 weeks. And I would like to conduct my preliminary text > searches on text that I can take from selected web pages to test my > theories about the relative words and count of those words associated with > some key words based on whether or not the key word was (according to my > opinion) a primary subject word or not. For instance, the word "flight" is > found in many types of texts, but by developing frequency of use records of > the words used along with the word "flight" I should be able to identify > whether the text is primarily about birds or about about airplanes or about > other sub-categories. (Although this is not a very exciting AI theory in > this day and age, I am using it as an example of how I am able to jump into > AI testing even though my program will take a some months to get up to > speed.) > > Explanation of the Project > I got so tired of hearing people use the word "prediction" as a basis of > their AI/AGI theories that I decided to try using prediction in real life > to see if was an effective method. I found, that like most other AI > theories it worked really well in a few cases and not so well in most > cases. However, the use of formal (declared) > predictions gave me a surprising ability to crystallize new insight around > the predicted events when they were compared to the event. So I tried to > get the guys who like to use the term "prediction" in their discussions of > AI to try this experiment themselves. Of course they could not be bothered > with such a mundane experiment. So I challenged them: Why not use your > predictions about your own AI/AGI projects as the basis for developing new > insights about your theories? They would have to be able to accept the > results of their experiments regardless of how well it worked out for them > because it just does not make sense to believe that you have it all figured > out if you cannot get your ideas to work year after year after year. But > even with this aggressive challenge they still could not be bothered. So I > decided to try it myself to show them how it might actually work. I > predicted that I would be able to get a limited AGI program (I called it > AGi) working within a year. I pointed out that some skeptics would not be > convinced no matter how the program turned out but that many of my peers > (like the less delusionally narcissistic guys in these groups) would be > able to see that it was working if I was actually able to get it working. > On the other hand, I explained, if I could not get my program working then > I would have to accept the results of my experiments and recognize that I > did not and do not have it all figured out. I do agree that an > experimenter has to be given some leeway and there is always the > possibility of a life-changing event interfering with the goal, but if I > still have nothing to show after 2 years then I have to accept that > there must be something important that I haven't figured out. It was > explained to me that the concept of "prediction" is used in different > theoretical ways in this group, but I was already aware of that. If you > are using "prediction" as a basis of any kind of AI/AGI learning models, > then you have to be able to know how to accept the results of an actual > experiment to compare it against the predicted experiment. In an advanced > AGI models (including the use of Bayesian Nets which I consider to be > mundane) the potential for generating new structured relationships based on > actual experiments is essential to the effective utilization of the model. > This kind of effective utilization is directly related to my personal > experience of having new insights crystallize around the predicted event > when compared with an actual experiment. My interest though, is not in > prediction per se but in how new structured insights crystallize. > 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
