I think I understand what you are getting at, and it makes a lot of sense. You and Aaron have convinced me that I should spend more time working on my AI / AGI project but unfortunately I still do not seem to have the time to work on it.
I think I do have some good ideas about things like artificial imagination which is important. And curiosity is something that I always felt was easy. Jim Bromer On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Stanley Nilsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for giving this some thought Jim. I'm going out of town for a few > days, so don't consider silence to be a loss of interest. > > One of your comments was: > > "But the program has to be able to develop its > own strategies to 'evaluate' some things because that is a good > strategy for a computer program to use - in some cases. And the > usefulness of logical 'evaluation' implies that some strategy for > evaluating conceptual relationships other than simple numerical > methods would also be a good strategy to use." > > --------------------- > My problem with the program developing "it's own strategy to evaluate..." is > that strategy is not a strength of a child. Somehow children acquire the > ability to put 2 and 2 together, but we haven't discovered how to get a > machine to do it. What's the machine equivalent of curiosity? I'm not > convinced that we have an adequate "big" picture to see how the pieces will > eventually fit together. > > The big picture looks kind of like "design and make a system that works, > even if one needs to, substitute human effort for some of the components." > Then, when the system is in place, determine how to remove more and more of > the human element. Eventually one is left with a system that may interface > with humans but only as though using them as a resource. > > By the way, I think a text only approach is a good start. I'm interested in > looking at the use of words as a way to convey "benefit." Initial design is > interesting because there are so many words and phrases to choose from. I > get it that this sounds like a chat bot, but for me it's a way of > experimenting with the idea of a benefit driven system. > > Stan > > > > On 12/06/2015 09:17 AM, Jim Bromer wrote: >> >> You might be able to think of ways to benefit the poor but you would >> have a lot of trouble to implement them. You might be able to help a >> few people but if you are like most of the rest of us that would be >> it. >> >> So you think that there are a lot of opportunities to use basic >> implementation strategies to get the AI/AGI program to do something >> that would be beneficial in some way? But the only problem that you >> foresee is the coding? But why would that be difficult? For example, I >> think that I could develop a prototype of an AGI program using text >> only. If you start with something like that then it would be simple to >> get started because you can find code that contains the basic forms >> for text IO. The problem that I am having is that even when I strip >> the plan down to what I think would be a minimum for a simple database >> management program (of my own design) it still cannot be done on the >> little time I have to code, and without any reason to believe that I >> could get past something that would not work too well I don't have >> much commitment to get going on it. >> >> You said: >> "Values (rules about values) come into play as the AGI picks the next >> thing to do. But, we already know that early AGI doesn't have a >> "values" structure to refer to. To program one is really not much of >> an option - it is too complex to "calculate" what the value of >> something is. To test the validity of my statement that it is too >> complex to calculate, try it. Imagine that you are writing this into >> code!" >> >> I have tried to imagine writing that into code! (Why wouldn't I have >> tried to imagine that?) But the program has to be able to develop its >> own strategies to 'evaluate' some things because that is a good >> strategy for a computer program to use - in some cases. And the >> usefulness of logical 'evaluation' implies that some strategy for >> evaluating conceptual relationships other than simple numerical >> methods would also be a good strategy to use. But this would be >> complicated. I think the opportunities that you mentioned would be >> difficult to code as well - if you wanted to avoid getting bogged down >> in code that is good for narrow-AI. The problem is that once you make >> the commitment to do something that is effectively narrow-AI then >> there are all sorts of enticing shortcuts that become available but >> that you really need to keep to a minimum. >> >> Using a text-only program that has to start so that it can only act on >> the simple 'opportunities' (or 'low hanging fruit') of text (and >> conversation of course) is where I would start. But it should be clear >> that I don't want to take all the shortcuts that sort of situation >> would offer. So I want my program to 'look' for opportunities on its >> own so to speak. It may not be possible for a program to do that at a >> very sophisticated level from our point of view, but we know that >> computer programs are good at some things that we are not so good at. >> So, my point of view is that the program should be able to pick up all >> sorts of patterns (opportunities) that we would miss so that is where >> I want to start at. Having thought about that I concluded that it >> would have to be looking at the recombination of all sorts of odd >> kinds of data in order to find a few combinations that might be >> useful. >> Jim Bromer >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5 > 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
