Jim, You don’t get it, i.e. creativity, and you seem almost incapable of getting it.
What you do below is – having been told the solution to a creative problem, – i.e. the meaning of a new derivative object, BALL BOX – work backward to how it can be *logically* generated, from a set of logical propositions. And so it all seems “easy” to you. The whole point of creativity/generativity is that you/your program DON’T , you DON’T have the answer/ method-of-solution before you begin – as you do in all narrow AI and rationality. You DON’T have a prior set of logical propositions which will enable you to understand “BALL BOX”. Creative/AGI problems can’t be solved by logic. This is why AGI as a whole is an unsolved problem.. This does help though in refining my General O.D. - it must be added that your program must solve not just one but AN ENDLESS CLASS of such operations, – handle not just one radically new object, but an ENDLESS CLASS of new objects – an endless class of new ball-box conjunctions. For example, let’s say you set up your text program with definitions/propositions that do encompass “ball boxes.” Now let it try and explain : HOW DO YOU SQUARE A CIRCLE? Hey, this program knows that boxes can be square, and balls are circular, and it even knows that there are such things as “ball boxes”. According to you, it ought to be able to, but in fact t it isn’t going to be able to do, a damn thing about squaring a circle. But YOU, a real AGI, can start having ideas now about how to do that - square a circle - new, non standard ideas. And that’s what we need to replicate/emulate – how you are able to be creative – and start having ideas about – and handling – objects that you DON’T already know how to handle, that you DON’T have any set of logical or other propositions or commands for. In this whole area, you can take some comfort from the fact that the entire field of AGI is making the same mistake as you – completely misunderstanding that AGI is about creativity, and doing new things you don’t already know how to do, solving problems that you don’t already know how to solve. Instead you and other AGI-ers are addressing completely the wrong, purely narrow AI challenge, of how to solve problems that you do already know logically how to solve. If you don’t have a proper AGI O.D. - a creative O.D. – all you can do is waste life, digging the same old hole in completely the wrong place ever deeper. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] A General O.D. (Operational Definition) for all AGI projects Mike Tintner said: Your project must have an E.M. for how BALL + BOX = BALLBOX i.e. you have to show how with only standard knowledge of two objects, balls & boxes, you can a) generate and/or b) understand a new, third object, “ball-box” that is derived from them by non-standard means. In this case, a BALLBOX is a box shaped like a ball rather than a cube. ------------------------------------------ I am only replying to this as a way to repeat one of my ideas that seems obvious or commonsensical me. It takes many 'statements' about a simple idea to understand it. So if you removed all knowledge except that knowledge that referred to a box or a ball then the text-based program would not be able to figure out that a "ballbox" was referring to a box shaped like a ball rather than a cube. And in fact, I did not realize what Mike was talking about until he made the statement that, "a ballbox is a box shaped like a ball rather than a cube." So no, an AGI program would not be able to figure that out without information beyond the heavily redacted information about balls and boxes. However, once the definition of a "ballbox" was made, as Mike made it for us, a text only AGI program would be able to figure it out (just as I was able to figure it out once I read it,) and use the term intelligibly. And, significantly, if the text-based AGI program had many statements about different things it would be able to consider ideas like: A box that can hold a ball. (That was my first guess.) A sphere that can hold a box. (That is a simple rearrangement of terms.) An box that was shaped like a ball. A ball that was shaped like a box. A metaphor of something else. For example, a square line on the ground where balls are put or something (similar to a "batter's box"). It is easy to see that these could all be generated using computational methods of rational creativity if the program had general knowledge about many different things. The real question is whether or not a text-based AGI program would ever be able to distinguish what kinds of things words "box" or "ball" referred to without ever seeing one. I can say that there are human beings who are born blind but who can use references to things like, "the view of the mountains in the distance," intelligibly. If the program used terms like this intelligibly their use would always be removed slightly from our more familiar use of the terms. But so what? The text-based AGI model is just a step that is being made to try to discover *how thinking works* in general rather than precise subprograms that concern the visual shapes of things (as in Mike's unconscious cherry-picked example.) Jim Bromer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [agi] A General O.D. (Operational Definition) for all AGI projects Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 10:25:31 +0100 What we’ve just seen with Jim is yet another example here of effective creative illiteracy –s.o. talking about their “creative” AGI project without any attempt at defining either its O.D. (the effect to be achieved) or an effective mechanism - without, to put that extremely crudely in common parlance, having any “idea”. To repeat, this is appalling – it’s simply non-creative and a waste of space. So to take further steps to eradicate this disease, let me put forward a general O.D. for A.G.I projects (and to some extent all culturally creative projects). Your project must have an E.M. for how BALL + BOX = BALLBOX i.e. you have to show how with only standard knowledge of two objects, balls & boxes, you can a) generate and/or b) understand a new, third object, “ball-box” that is derived from them by non-standard means. In this case, a BALLBOX is a box shaped like a ball rather than a cube. (That is a more concrete way of saying: “you must be able to show how your project can think outside the box”). Another example would be, you must have an E.M. for how CAT + DOG = CATOTAUR a creature, similar to a minotaur, half cat, half dog. Or, you must have an E.M. for how 2 + 2 = 5 again, your machine must from knowledge of standard maths be able to produce non-standard maths. (And for the benefit of “same old, same old” Matt, that does not mean googling an existing 2+2=5 “proof” – you have to generate/understand an altogether new one). Or, you must be able to show how 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks. You must be able to show how having knowledge of how two rocks are laid, you can lay another two rocks on top of them. Laying rock walls is not a math operation like laying brick walls – each rock is individually formed and needs to be laid individually. (Or your system must just be able to recognize/conceptualise ROCK, since all rock forms are individual and non-standard). In all of these cases, you combine two objects to produce a third object that has never, to your knowledge, been derived from them before. You do “magic” – you put a rabbit in an empty hat and pull out a bird. You put a penis in a vagina and pull out a baby (“where did that come from?”) It’s a waste of time to even ask Jim to produce an O.D., but anyone serious about AGI will want to produce an O.D. with an E.M. - an explanation of a BALL BOX. 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
