Michael, The Hobbs paper was about one system that competed with other systems to analyze a corpus of real-world terrorist threat reports, complete with contorted and ambiguous statements, to determine particular things. The Hobbs system was SECOND best among the contestants.
They programmed and trained on one corpus, and then competed on another corpus that none of the competitors had previously seen. Each corpus was carefully analyzed by hand before turning the computers loose on it, so scoring was simply a measure of how close the computers came to the hand analysis. No one came close to achieving a perfect score. This seems like a pretty good "measure" to me. Given the combination of this paper and the *60 Minutes* report about the NSA bugging the Internet backbone, it seems inconceivable (to me) that this posting isn't being analyzed by a similar system. Steve =================== On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:06 AM, tintner michael <[email protected]>wrote: > Russ:PDF: > http://louisville.edu/speed/computer/tr/UL_CECS_02_2011.pdf/at_download/file ) > is a good read on that question. > > The paper concludes: > > "Progress in the field of artificial intelligence requires access to well > defined problems of measurable > complexity." > > ...and all AGI problems including language use and vision are ILL-defined, > creative and not measurable as opposed to well-defined, rational and > measurable. Think just of essays, papers and projects which compose well > over 50% of education as distinct from IQ, SAT, knowledge tests and the > like - they cannot be measured, only graded. > > Creative/AGI intelligence is a whole different world and level of > problemsolving/intelligence from rational/narrow AI intelligence. > High-level as opposed to low-level intelligence. > > (At least this paper has a few glimmers of the breadth of human > problemsolving rather than being purely mathematical/logical). > > > > On 27 November 2013 04:05, Russ Hurlbut <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is good practice to find truth in statements such as these before >> dismissing them. This often requires adopting one or more contexts. >> >> In this case, if one assumes a traditional definition of "AI-complete" by >> extending Hobbs statement to imply actually creating an artificial >> intelligence, then anything short of AI-Complete would be fall under Hobb's >> definition of "computer science." If one chooses to apply the dual process >> theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Systems ), >> then one could argue that an Expert System would fit Hobbs definition of >> fast, computer science. Conversely, the massively parallel unconscious >> processing that humans regularly perform (e.g. in speech, vision) would >> require enormous computing resources and considerable time - even more so >> using resources available twenty years ago. >> >> Does solving syntactic ambiguity really result in creating an artificial >> intelligence? Yampolskiy's paper AI-Complete, AI-Hard, or AI-Easy: >> Classification of Problems in Artificial Intelligence (PDF: >> http://louisville.edu/speed/computer/tr/UL_CECS_02_2011.pdf/at_download/file) >> is a good read on that question. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Piaget Modeler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hobbs' statement: >>> >>> >>> *Q: What is the difference between computer science and artificial >>> intelligence? * >>> *A: In computer science you write programs to do quickly what people do >>> slowly. In artificial intelligence, it is just the opposite.* >>> >>> In AI we don't write programs to do slowly what people do quickly. In >>> Expert Systems in particular, once it is known what people >>> do symbolically, an expert system often does the symbol manipulations >>> faster >>> that a person. Also, Expert Systems can perform >>> those symbol manipulations 24 x 7 x 365. Thereby bringing consistency, >>> accuracy, and endurance to the formerly human task. >>> >>> This statement is clearly false. >>> >>> ~PM >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18488709-8cf25195> | >>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >> 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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
