Stanley Nilsen <[email protected]> wrote: > It might be useful to make a distinction between acting intelligent and > having reached a degree of intelligence where one is "insightful". There > are millions of people who are mostly trained by "external reinforcement" > and we consider them to be intelligent. If people were judged intelligent > based on their ability to learn via "key structural insights" then we would > only consider scientist types to be intelligent.
> I consider it an essential feature of a "baby" intelligence to simply "ask" > for the opinion of others. Even an ability to ask for help and advice is > complex. > > Stan I agree that the process of education is complicated and absolutely crucial to AGI. But the idea that a baby learns from others only through an external reinforcement method, like a kludgy method that a programmer might attach to an AI program, is not something that I would agree with. I am working on a text-based AI program that I hope is going to be able to demonstrate some basic AGI capabilities. So, the program, if it works, is going to be learning from external direction. But if that external direction can only work by attaching some kludgy reinforcement button or crude evaluation input, my opinion is that it will not be able to achieve much. A computer program that is capable of true learning will probably have to learn through gradual trial and error. It will be difficult for the program to use incremental trial and error learning to gain much traction unless there is some mechanism which might help it make small leaps in insight. I believe that key structural insights might be able to provide that kind of traction to show that elementary learning (true learning) is feasible. Jim On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Stanley Nilsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/07/2013 03:16 AM, Jim Bromer wrote: >> >> One of the problems is how do you get an AGI program to be 'aware' >> that it has found an appropriate solution to 'understanding' a >> situation without some kludgy method of external reinforcement? I >> believe that key structural insights may play an important role in >> this process. I assume that most learning takes place through an >> incremental process of accumulating small pieces of insight or >> know-how. >> >> > It might be useful to make a distinction between acting intelligent and > having reached a degree of intelligence where one is "insightful". There > are millions of people who are mostly trained by "external reinforcement" > and we consider them to be intelligent. If people were judged intelligent > based on their ability to learn via "key structural insights" then we would > only consider scientist types to be intelligent. > > My point is that we can be intelligent just by accumulating and integrating > what is "appropriate" even if we are simply told what is appropriate. > > I consider it an essential feature of a "baby" intelligence to simply "ask" > for the opinion of others. Even an ability to ask for help and advice is > complex. I would be thrilled if my conceptual AGI were able to send out > email to "cooperative" souls who would return "forms" that the AGI could > harvest useful stuff from. > > Stan > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- 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
