Mike, I am not sure why I want to discuss this with you. I have made a breakthrough in a simple computational method which is directly related to AGI. However, it may not be enough to overcome the AGI complexity problem. But, for just a moment, suppose that it did. Suppose that I was able to create a working demo of an AGi program which showed some genuine ability to learn new things. Would that mean that you were right and I was wrong? If I expressed my viewpoint that I had found a way to overcome the complexity problem and if my method actually worked then wouldn't my interpretation of the situation must be closer to the truth than yours. Yes this is just an imaginary situation but it is different than your imaginary situation. But the question is: If I was able to devise a system to overcome what I considered the complexity of AGI problem would that mean that:1. There never was a complexity problem.2. There was a complexity problem that needed to be overcome and once someone figured it out AGI became feasible.3. Your point of view was just as good as mine because we were both right in a way.4. Neither point of view was right.5. None of the above.6. All of the above.7. What ever I decide must be right and you can work it out from there. Jim Bromer From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:17:22 +0100
It’s not prejudging. And it’s not particularly directed at you. You are simply following an intellectually mad, widespread, GOFAI notion about the potential productivity of pure language/text analysis – a notion that has already demonstrably wasted God knows how many years of would-be AGI-ers’ lives. Look at the idiocy (and incorrigibility) of Lenat’s enterprise. Similarly, you are following an equally old-fashioned and mad notion that the complexity which has bedevilled narrow AI, has something to do with AGI – of which you also cannot produce a single problem example. No examples, no evidence = mucho waste of life. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:22 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. Mike, I am only replying now because I want to see if the formatting of Hotmail.com is compatible with listbox. I would be happy to talk to you about this after I finish my summary if you could avoid prejudging what I might have to say. This kind of remark, "Give one example of the kind of productive text analysis you (or anyone else) mean[s] – and you’ll find it is impossible and save yourself years of life," is really a blatant example of prejudging. I feel that personal remarks interfere with what is being said even though they could be useful if used sparingly. Prejudging what someone is going to say is a kind of personal remark. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Tintner <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. To: AGI <[email protected]> So we’re talking about text analysis? (That didn’t hurt, did it ? ) Give one example of the kind of productive text analysis you (or anyone else) mean[s] – and you’ll find it is impossible and save yourself years of life. And you could at least start a productive discussion here. [Note that Steve was just specific about his proposed project – and that produced a useful discussion]. Lots of people seem to have fantasies about a supposed AGI program that is going to become wise and ultimately rule the world through analysing the texts on the net. It’s total cobblers. As I’ve pointed out, there isn’t a program that can productively analyse the possible combinations of two or three words, let alone two sentences, let alone the contents of one or two texts. The fantasies are all Chinese room fantasies about how a manipulator of meaningless words enclosed in a black box can become supremely wise about the outside world, without ever venturing outside. Fantasies of real world wisdom without real world experience. That’s how science became so relatively wise about the world, right? – by scientists staying inside their studies and playing with words and logic? Or did Francis Bacon first have to smash that fantasy ? From: Jim Bromer Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:08 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Alan Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: Mike Tintner wrote: What’s your O.D. ? What’s the end-product of your program? Drawings? Buildings? Text-readings? Wtf is it going to DO? Or is that too difficult for you to say? ... I'm getting sick of these jags you go off on. Last week it was "Well your AI doesn't implement true creativity; prove that it does!" This week you are ignoring the G in general AI. The word GENERAL in AI, like in computer science at large, means "Virtually any" So it must be capable of dealing with virtually any problem in virtually any domain using virtually any method. So therefore it must be able to learn any abstraction less than equal some reasonable complexity metric and it must have the computational capabilities to optimize and apply those abstractions. ... Alan, My text-based AGi program would be a limited kind of AGI program but it would be a proof-of-concept thing. If it worked then it would be general enough to convert it for different kinds of IO actions. A program that could do some genuine learning and derive abstractions from text would be flexible enough to modify for conversion to image AGI and so on. Jim Bromer AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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
<<inline: wlEmoticon-smile[1].png>>
