I agree with Piaget.... this is more like a brain dump, not a bad brain dump, I mean, it's fine, still a brain dump, hard to get to the meat of it.
On 4/16/13, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
