Understanding is the abillity to ENACT what has been presented, in the real
world - wh. means a) the ability to put actions described into action, and b)
the ability to go and look at objects described, wherever they are in the real
world.
A child may hence understand v. little of a description of sex. They can’t
enact sex.
Most people may understand v. little of descriptions of financial
wheeler-dealing. They don’t begin to know how to enact those financial
operations.
They will , you could say, *comprehend* what has been said – be able to define
the words reasonably well – but they won’t understand the financial activities
and text as a whole.
A computer program understands absolutely nothing about anything. It’s no
different from an array of neon lights presenting an advertising message. The
lights have not the slightest understanding or knowledge of what message is
being presented – they don’t even know a message is being presented. Computer
programs are no different. People- wh. means most AGI-ers – who think programs
understand what they are doing, are the same as people who think a neon light
array is communicating with them. Suckers for an illusion..
Note the massive distinction here – AI-ers think “understanding” consists in
“GROUNDING” a message – being able to *point* to the objects.
No, it consists of the ability to ENACT what is presented – the ability , on
hearing GO TO THE KITCHEN, to be able to indeed go to the kitchen. Or, on
hearing HAVE A CONVERSATION with Sam, to be able to go and have a conversation
with Sam.
This is what we actually unquestionably want of an AGI – the ability to
understand/enact our brief general instructions to perform a course of action
- GO TO THE SHOPS, MAKE A TOWER, FILL THAT HOLE - just as humans can –
WITHOUT our having to extremely laborIously pre-program it for every step of
that course of action.
From: Steve Richfield
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:07 PM
To: AGI
Subject: [agi] What is "understanding"?
Aaron, et al,
Recent discussions regarding representation brings up an even more fundamental
question - what is "understanding".
Here are some possibilities:
1. The ability to recognize actionable input, e.g. DrEliza.com
2. The ability to usefully manipulate words w/o adding content, e.g. in
automated translation systems.
3. The ability to overload characteristics that may not be present, as people
often do when talking about things that they haven't had direct contact with,
e.g. this sort of computer "understanding".
4. ???
I am NOT looking for vague wishy-washy words. I am looking for a solid
definition that defines the outer boundary of "understanding", enough to guide
efforts to define a good representation for it.
Any thoughts?
Steve
AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
