This is a good summary, I think, Todor. I was just pondering some of these issues.
One point that I want to make is that just because somebody seems interested in philosophy, that does NOT mean somebody (OK me) thinks that philosophy is supposed to "do everything." I like what this guy wrote about philosophy vs. science: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pigliucci20130730 I was also trying to think of somebody who could be considered an authority on AGI. If we base the judgement on working AGI, there isn't anybody. Most people say "give me ten years and a lot of dough" which is fine... that means they have an idea and an approach, but it falls short of making somebody an authority. By authority, I mean has the social authorization to shoot down or minimize somebody's ideas. Mike A On 8/7/13, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > @Emahn > > Check this course program, AFAIK that was the first University course on > AGI, it suggests what topics/fields to be studied and in what sequence: > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/04/universal-artificial-intelligence.html > > @All > >> > http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/2013/08/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:28/20130802164109:D9F5ED2C-FBB3-11E2-95E0-C8B515BE0CB4/ > > Ben> Off this list, AGI folks have shared ideas and inspired each others > research plenty.. > Ben> It may be the case on this list that people don't get inspired by each > others' work though, I dunno -- I haven't > actually monitored this list carefully for some years... > > Todor: Well, that's how I see the case here. > > - Sometimes there's a cross of points, but it tends to be one-sided - the > other side does not agree or doesn't have reciprocal interest, "he's the > only one with that idea", doesn't accept that there are similarities - > "they are superficial ones" > - There's no ranking: too many leaders, but zero followers and no way to > judge about who should be trusted > - Very few make an effort to get to know with others' work out of the tiny > superficial talks in emails; furthermore: > - Long emails are often blamed "you talk too much" or are just ignored > or answered in 2 lines, even if the author clearly has what to say --> > actually the readers can't concentrate on the subject matter, "don't have > time" or don't care - the author doesn't have the authority needed in order > to justify the time and efforts they are supposed to invest, the other > readers believe they are too much superior > > - There's severely not consistent background of the participants, and > what's worse, there are severe gaps in the backgrounds which the > "sufferers" are not aware of, not willing or not capable to fill, yet they > act like if they didn't have those gaps > > The above is connected to: > > - Multi-intra-inter-domain blindness/insufficiency - people claim they are > working on understanding "general" intelligence, but they clearly do not > display treats of general/multi-inter-disciplinary interests and skills. > > Some can't play or remember a tune of 10 or 20 tones themselves, or can't > draw a face or dance the simplest dance, but they consider music or art to > be "a hard problem". > > They should not be considered as qualified for such claims, but they do > make them... Moreover, since "AGI problem is an unsolved problem" to prove > them wrong in terms they would get, and due to that weakness of many pseudo > AGI-ers who are not generally intelligent themselves (not versatile) to > realize that due to their non-versatile intelligence they can't understand > the trivialness of some problems which are unreachable for their minds, > they would rather believe they know better, because they have some other > credentials and external social ranks - PhDs, conference publications. It > doesn't matter that those publications obviously yield zero meaningful > results. > > Probably most of the researchers in all fields fall in this poor group. > Musicians or artists know that what they do is not a hard problem, it's > rather an easy one. They say Mozart has composed "on the fly" - every > improvising musician does. > > -- MUSICAL IMPROVISATION > > You need to be able to recognize the scale - in case you're jamming with a > bass or a piano, or to select a scale if you direct - and then you should > follow the scale; while playing your track you should remember a few tones > in the past, your direction up/down/jump/change up-down, maybe a few > melodic patterns you've already played in the session, and you have to be > able to see a few tones ahead in the frame of the scale, what you're going > to play next. > > Sometimes there can be a modulation - scale change, there are some > positions which are better for a change than others, depending both on the > tones, the rhythm, the pace. It's not much. > > The performer may also "interpret" with "emotions", which is just varying > some of the parameters of the tone - adding vibrato, tremolo, changing pace > - slow down, speed up; slide, de-tune etc. > > That's all about the "MAGIC" of creativity in improvisation. It's > profitable for the professional musicians to keep the audience believing > that they are "magicians". > > ... > > -- CONITNUES... > > "General" is often used as something "not specified", "vaguely defined", > instead of "universal" and "versatile". See also: > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2013/02/versatile-self-improvement-vsi-vi-vlsi.html > > I've discussed many times this issue, it hurts all researchers in the AGI > field - subjects that are trivial for an appropriate mind are assumed to be > "hard problems", what about the really hard ones for the people who solve > those pseudo hard ones. > > -- CATEGORIES of participants > > For example one active guy here seems to be definitely just a > mathematician, I guess also a sort of low-level small-scale programmer (not > system-wide cross-module software architect), more precisely he's doing > discrete mathematics and some... arithmetic? This is supposed to be fully > qualified AGI... > > Others demonstrate clearly philosophical traits. Philosophy is general per > se, but taken alone it lacks the "practitioner" part, the average > philosophers' works didn't lead to practical inventions, because philosophy > usually is too general and ungrounded - it's "theory without practice" and > is not applicable without marrying with other fields. When these fields are > inaccessible by the philosopher's mind, there are only general words or > concepts. It's possible that the philosopher does "feel" some kind of > introspective understanding, but she can't express it in "convertible" > terms, so it stays "inside". > > There's another issue - the other persons do not understand the deep > philosophical implications, that the philosopher aims to communicate and > sometimes assume as being obvious, because the audience are not > philosophers and do not see so deeply or generally. > > There are also social thinkers, that goes with philosophy, but again - > without the more "hard" sciences it obviously can't make a runnable > machine/theory, and most of the "technical" thinkers are in another > category and don't get social guys the same way as they expected. > > Others are aware of neuroscience and have insights, and sometimes build > bridges to other fields in which are also adept, but if the rest of the > audience are unaware of the neuroscience or they lack the broadness of > knowledge - or can't focus, can't invest in understanding all that's > required and would have made the links obvious - they absolutely wouldn't > get the insights of the neuroscientifically-aware ones and the links to > philosophy, mathematics, linguistics, etc. The audience may lack > appropriate background in those other fields, too, which makes it worse: > > The author may be blamed for "sharing ideas without research" or just > "fantasizing", when the real situation could be that the audience haven't > read the papers which the author has had, and which she assumed that the > others are aware of. > > Most people in general have weak or missing visual imagination, the ones > with the best one is more modest than the graphics of an 8-bit PC - what > about the gap between the ones who "see things" and can transform them > mentally, and the ones who don't and speak in boring strings of words > without grounding or visual mappings - that's yet another point of > impossible contact of minds. > > Some people think verbally, strictly logically which in this case means: > sequentially and over generalized without reference to specifics, and with > no chance of seeing how those generalized symbols were born from pixels and > sounds. They are rarely citing specific data, they cannot see what the > visually minded say or imply in terms of transformations. > > Other people think or try to express their ideas visually, but without > generalizing, working with unrelated images, failing to see concepts, but > just a bunch of sensory inputs, which "can't be generalized, it's an > endless variety, because the endless variety can't be generalized in its > original form". > > The above leads to mistaking specific concepts and concrete sensory input > with/for generalizations - a mess, which the sufferers assume is "a prove > that AGI is magic, impossible, unsolved problem" - while what's true is > that if the observer can't generalize given set of samples, they just > should be kept untouched, they are samples of "specifics". Only the > properties which are common are generalized. > > ... > > -- WORKABLE THEORIES and IMPLEMENTATIONS > > Some people try to work on workable theories and implementations, but this > list is a home of the poorest and the most lonely ones in the AGI > community, even though some of them were some of the pioneers of the new > wave of that community, long before the "institutionalized" researchers to > take it as "prestigious". > > The list's researchers poorness impedes their opportunities/motivation for > concentrated work/producing academic-style materials - many believe the > mainstream academic system (including many aspects of the peer-review > journals etc.) has intrinsic corruptions and have left it for "political" > reasons. > > Moreover, even if they do know how or have potential to develop working > machines, this is a big effort that may take a lot of time before they have > a complete system - coded and running. If they haven't produced visible > results already, that doesn't imply they wouldn't do after years of > collection of critical mass, as long as they could work. > > Besides they are supposed to be 10, 100 or 1000 times more capable than the > normally funded and organized ones from the academic/industrial > competition. They can't afford visiting appropriate conferences or travel > around research centers and are alienated. > > They should have much broader knowledge and skills, acquire new knowledge > and skills in shorter time and work much faster, because: > -- they can't afford truly focused work - too much other troubles, too much > sub-problems they should solve alone, a lot of wasted time in attempts to > find partners or develop some "booster-funding" technologies, plenty of > frustration due to the isolation and helplessness against all the problems > they have to solve alone (or give up) > -- they do not have students, partners or "slaves" to give the dirty job to > > Overall, they should shoot 100 or 1000 targets with one bullet, or they > "die". > > Welcome to the list of losers... :)) > > However some of these "losers", due to the extreme requirements they face, > may really be 50 or 100 times more productive or knowledgeable and > non-conventional than the "ordinary" funded and supported competition, and > may have guts and balls that the others lack. Otherwise they should have > given up, be part of the existing institutes - "institutionalized" - or > from the "AI". But they are not from those institutes, because when they > proclaimed that "AI was wrong" they were outsiders already, heading towards > new directions. > > Furthermore, those brave ones are supposed to believe and find a way to > make thinking machine possible on cheap, old and slow hardware, otherwise > they should have another reason to give up to the supercomputer owners and > the rich institutionalized researchers... > > However there's a catch here, which might favor the poor ones - the rich > pampered ones' power has its by-effects of dimming their mind so much that > they may invent and throw hydrogen PFLOPS bombs for solving "cockroach > problems" - just to show off their power, - instead of using a couple of > $0.10 or $0.00 MFLOPS jars from the garbage can to catch the little insects > alive, study them thoroughly through the glass and then letting them > continue living free... :)) > > That's why the "battle" is not decided already... > > [Music goes here] > > Terminator 2 Score ''Helicopter / Tanker Chase'': > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80Sm9jW7Ms > > Robocop Theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TBPSnnicUo > > > -- > ===* Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov ===* > * > .... Twenkid Research:* http://research.twenkid.com > > .... *Author of the world first University courses in AGI (2010, 2011)*: > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/04/universal-artificial-intelligence.html > > *.... Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog**: * > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com > * > * > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
