I have it all figured out... Almost. I do not have AGI complexity all figured out. But I do believe that I can reduce the complexity enough to create an AGI program that can demonstrate minimal competency that goes beyond any genuine AGI program that is around today. But I might be wrong. I won't know until I try it. It should take me a year to run my experiments. Now let's say that a year from now I am saying the same sort of thing. I have it all figured out, I have really learned a lot in the last year but AGI programming is really complicated and I haven't been able to get the kind of results I had been expecting. Well, that will be a negative indicator but researchers should be given some leeway. That kind of leeway should be accorded to part-time amateur researchers as well. (It should especially be granted to part time amateur researchers.) But on the other hand I should be able to report something about the negative results that I got. I shouldn't carry on with hubris and hyperbole when faced with an outstanding setback. Now if 2 years goes by and I am still saying the same thing then my credibility should start declining. The people who are claiming that my credibility should be going down now do not get how science works. But a researcher has to demonstrate enough integrity to report honestly on negative results. Minimal competency in AGI means that the program will be able to demonstrate some genuine learning and it will be able to embark on unique paths. The only way you could get two copies of the same program to be exactly the same is to duplicate the hardware and run time conditions almost exactly. Also, if the program worked then it could be adapted to other IO modalities in a fairly short time. I am going to write a text-based AGI program. No, it won't have deep knowledge into what things look like. However I believe that the basis of intelligence is not directly dependent on multiple IO modalities although I do have some opinions about the variations of data-events that need to appear in the IO Data Environment. Is there going to be a problem in minimal competency learning because the text-based AGI program won't have any iconic grounding? No. The program will have text-based grounding, information about relevant concepts that can be found in other statements. The fact that the grounding problem can be abstracted (and reduced) down to a question about packets of data should be enough to get you to think outside the box on this one. The iconic grounding theory was originally proposed as a possible solution to AI / AGI nearly 30 years ago but in the time since it was first proposed there has not been any outstanding evidence that it represented a viable solution to the problem. What about the basic question? When we think about something a little novel we usually refer to a visual or other sensory experiences to make a determination about it. Well that is a reasonable question to ask but it is not a profound one. There are people who were born blind so right away you should be a little wary of asserting the necessity of the visual confirmation in general thought. Secondly, we do not use that method for every kind of novelty that we think of. So this does leave me with one interesting question. Does the knowledge about every object in a text-based AGI program have to be associated with visual descriptors? That could prove quite inconvenient. The answer is no. The worse case is that a concept might have to be designated as a material object or as a material object of fantasy. That would allow the program to infer that it had some visual features. So if someone introduced the idea that box had a distinctive (kind of) shape for the first time, the new synthesis would not cause the program to start smoking from the iconic fantasy of the skeptics' childhood. 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
