An AGI program has to have some means to verify the conjectures that it creates. This verification method is not going to be perfect but there has to be some means for the program to qualify the theories that it tries to use. A lot of guys have talked about prediction. So I challenged them to try using prediction in their own lives to see how it worked. I then decided to try it myself. And the use of prediction did help me crystalize some insights around the predictions but they tended to serve as temporal benchmarks. I did however, find that I was able to use those benchmarks to start to analyze why I did or did not meet my original predictions. I may be just talking to myself right now, but that is not an invalidation of what I am saying.
If you feel that if a function in an AGI program works then it must be a validation of the effectiveness of the function then I would say that you are seriously delusional about this. The problem is what does "it works" means. So a theory has to be validified through a structural integration process. So I will try to start integrating some sort of structural integration model of verification into my reports on my prediction about my AGi project. However, I am not exactly sure how to do that yet. So if you have some method of verification that you think would work in an AGI program then I am saying try it against your own problem solving in real life. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
