Is this Alternate Universe Day or what???
Oh My Gosh !!!
(Typically we admonish Mike Tintner for his fuzzy thinking an insistence on
vague definitions.)
~PM
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [agi] A Protocol for an AGI project (and forum!)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:14:23 +0100
Ben:
If people were
banned from doing science until they had a proof of
concept, how would they
ever do the work needed to create the proof of
concept?
;-p
Ben’s frivolous reply helps me frame a serious proposal
– and IMO – an extremely good idea for any AGI/inventor’s project AND
FORUM! I hope people will take it seriously because it could
be enormously helpful to creatives everywhere as well as AGI.
Let me first recap:
DEFINITION OF A PROPER INVENTIVE PROJECT
Any seriously undertaken AGI or inventive project should have:
1) an **operational definition** – of the practical EFFECT(s)
the machine will produce – what it will do – in this case: what AGI problems it
will solve, (and how
it will diversify to solve more AGI problems)
2)a **proof of concept** – which
sets out an EFFECTIVE MECHANISM to produce the desired effect - you must be
able
to give a practical reason why your project will work – in this case your
project’s mechanism to solve AGI problems. It should be practically clear
that that mechanism has a *chance* of success/working – producing the desired
effect (as a wine-press can clearly press printed seals down). By definition, a
machine involves many mechanisms – the proposal will only cover one or two –
and
so may not solve the others and work in the end. But it should constitute a
definite start.
By definition also, re Ben’s frivolous
evasion, we are talking about what should happen when inventors/creatives
seriously **commit** to a project – and especially when, like Ben, they involve
others in their schemes. Before then, they can think about any aspect of the
project they like. But **if they are going to get serious,** they should have
both 1) and 2).
Any serious creative person will *want*
to impose such a definitional demand on themself. The above requirements are
common sense – a more specific way of saying “you must define the problem (and
outline at least a part of the solution)”
*WHY THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS ARE
EXCITING*
The non-philosopher/psychologist
may not appreciate them, but these definitions/terminology have the power to
pin
down both creative projects and discussions, where existing definitions allow
them to spiral into confusion.
For example, one common way of
expressing 2) is to say “Ben doesn’t have an *idea* of how to solve AGI *. This
is true, but “idea” doesn’t pin down what is missing, and can be endlessly
evaded, arguing about what an idea is . Ditto it’s common to say “Ben is
offering a *magic sauce* for AGI “.. True, but it still doesn’t really pin down
what is missing, because it talks of “sauce” as opposed to “effective
mechanism”.
Ask Ben :
1) what is Opencog’s operational
definition of AGI – what effect/ AGI problems will it solve?
2) what is its effective mechanism for
solving those problems?
.and you won’t get an answer. You will
probably get a waffly evasion : “it will solve a child’s intelligence test” or
“be a child scientist” or somesuch. But persist with “what practical effect
will
it solve – what AGI problems will it solve?” and Ben & others will depart
the field. They haven’t got an answer, and unfortunately they aren’t even
interested in trying to produce one.
WHY CREATIVES NEED TO BE PINNED
DOWN.
Ben classically demonstrates the
necessity to pin would-be creatives down - which is that so
many will evade the problem. It is human nature, when faced with a
difficult creative problem, to do what Ben (AND ALL OF US) do – turn to easier
problems. Don’t deal with the problem at all, deal with other
nonproblematic mechanisms of your machine – not the effective, “take-off”
mechanism, but some problem of logic or processors. Or write a paper on an
entirely different philosophical problem. Or do your washing. We are all
endlessly guilty of this – Ben, being so productive, just does it more visibly
than most.
But what also happens is that would-be
creatives can spend *years*, **DECADES**, an **ENTIRE LIFETIME**
never dealing with the problem – never even trying to produce an idea about
their effective mechanism .
This is actually a tragic waste of life
– and almost a disease. We need to stop it . And we can stop it.
A PROPOSAL FOR A TRUE CREATIVE/AGI
FORUM
The above definitions make it simple to
take action – and pin creatives down.
What we need is a v. simple **review
system** on this forum – and every inventor’s forum.
A different version of what already
exists on many forums – which is the opportunity to click on “Vote up/approve”
or “Vote down/disapprove” posts.
General approval/disapproval or grades
will have no effect.
Instead I suggest we have two
responses - “O.D./NO O.D. - Tick either
... E.M. /NO E.M... Tick Either [for
Operational definition – effect / Effective Mechanism].
Obviously, readers should only
respond when a post contains or refers to an AGI proposal.
Anyone who has been subject to a review
system knows that this will have an effect. I can cite my somewhat
tangential experience hosting/renting-out-rooms on airbnb. when you get
specific
criticisms, it really stings – and you do something about them. Specific
reviews
are powerful.
If Ben were to receive a shower of “No
O.D.”/”No E.M.” responses, you would find that – whereas he has been
able to brush off the isolated criticisms of individuals – he would start
noticing. And it might take time, but a miracle would happen – he would
actually start addressing the problem of AGI – the E.M. – directly. He would
want to get a tick or two. A lifetime of evasion would be halted.
Ditto Jim. The waffle would
slowly start disappearing – he would start sharpening up his act – might even
introduce evidence.
We all would. Criticisms –
institutionally, publicly framed criticisms – affect people, as we have seen
throughout society in many forms in recent decades.
You’re programmers – can you find a way
of introducing such a system here, where everyone can automatically tick posts
on these criteria?
I kid you not – this simple system will
“save lives” – save years of wasted life – and generally sharpen up debate and
standards.
And if it works here, it will spread.
Maybe there is some equivalent system on another forum. As a philosopher, aware
of the philosophical problems involved in reaching appropriate definitions of
creativity, I would doubt it but it’s possible.
In the meantime, I or others can frame
a standard post of reply – with “NO O.D. “etc – that people could send
individually. It might mean a flood of responses to a given post – but we could
easily delete, without opening them.
Please do take this proposal
seriously. Review systems have proven effectiveness. They may seem cruel
at first – they are actually extremely productive and helpful. Don’t sink
into inertia . Help others and help yourself.
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
