Valient's theory of PAC learning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probably_approximately_correct_learning
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Juan Carlos Kuri Pinto <[email protected]>wrote: > There are 2 approaches for programming AI: > > 1. Reductionist AI, in which the programmer hardwires a reductionist > solution to a specific kind of problems. This approach is brittle when you > change the kind of problems to solve. This is what Narrow AI is all about. > > 2. Holistic AI, in which the meta-programmer meta-programs a learning > network capable of adapting its topology to fit the causal hyper-geometries > of all kinds of problems. In other words, the Holistic AI system does the > reduction process the programmer is supposed to do in the Narrow AI > approach. This is what General AI is all about. Holistic AI is the approach > of Monica Anderson and me. > > The book "Probably Approximately Correct: Nature's Algorithms for Learning > and Prospering in a Complex World" is about Holistic AI. > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:17:15 -0500 >> Subject: [agi] Probably Approximately Correct: Nature's Algorithms for >> Learning and Prospering in a Complex World [By Leslie Valiant] >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Probably Approximately Correct: Nature's Algorithms for Learning and >> Prospering in a Complex World [By Leslie Valiant] >> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BE650IQ/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_ask_bQunF.0CDBG0V >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> I am just guessing about what the book is about based on the blurb, but >> the idea that we can muddle through without needing to understand what is >> going on is either poorly stated or nonsense. Although our theories are >> usually pretty weak, they are none the less theories. I do not believe >> that we are just basing our interest according to a coincidental >> correlation between three objects which can then be used to create chains >> and fences of correlations. I believe that the imagination is extremely >> important both in discovering objects of interest and in generating >> theories to explain the mechanisms behind the objects. That does not mean >> that we never rely on the linkages of ternary correlations it is just >> that a computational explanation of consciousness which goes that since a >> computer is not "conscious" of what it is doing then the potential for >> higher computational intelligence must prove that human beings are not >> "conscious" of what they are doing, just does not work for me. We are >> conscious of some of what we do even if these theories are not very good >> ones. >> >> One thing that I have been talking about for a number of years now is the >> importance of structural integration of concepts. Even if our theories and >> knowledge about a subject of interest are not that great we can begin to >> develop different ways to think about the subject and then use these >> different vantages to begin building better responsive insight about the >> subject. I think this can be done in AGI programs. Weak theories do not >> (always) need to be disposed but their influence in deriving conclusions >> about a subject matter can be modified so that they are used when more >> appropriate for the conditions. >> >> - This is only one possible presentation about my theories of structural >> integration. This is one way that I have to think about the subject. >> Parts of this presentation should seem very familiar to people who have >> thought about the subject and I am sure that there are people who would >> seize on the part where I said, the "influence [of weak theories] in >> deriving conclusions about a subject matter are modified so that they can >> be used when more appropriate for the conditions," as referring to the >> exact same thing as they have thought about when they try to >> design AI methods capable of producing improvement over time or after >> training. However, this effort to interpret what someone else says only on >> the basis of whether or not -I- have thought about things like this before >> can produce extremely insipid conclusions. (I do it all the time so I am >> not claiming some kind of superiority.) One reason my thoughts about this >> subject are a little different than the typical machine learning paradigm >> of learning-based improvement is that I explicitly emphasize the use of >> theories during learning. I was not just talking about the theories >> of people (who programmed some learning mechanism) but about the theories >> that the AGI program might generate through artificial imagination. So, >> had someone misread my statement believing that his machine learning theory >> was already imbued with a system where, 'conclusions about a subject matter >> were modified so that they would be used when more appropriate for the >> conditions,' he might have missed the point of my message entirely. That >> is one of the most serious problems with egomaniac-driven theorization. If >> you read everything only in the terms of how it is right or wrong according >> to your own theories you may end up missing central points of some >> reasonable remarks. >> >> So even though computers may not be conscious like we are I believe that >> we have to use meta-awareness in our AGI programs in order to make them act >> more reasonably. The theories that they will generate may not be that >> great but by using conceptual structural integration I believe that it >> should be feasible for them to use imagination and reason to build better >> analysis and response methods. So as they learn, some of their weak >> theories will be strengthened by making them more conditional and by >> extending their range of implementation slightly. This is only one part of >> my structural integration theories. >> >> Jim Bromer >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23601136-e0982844> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/3701026-786a0853> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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
