Smart person, nanograte, one of the smartest nanogrates I know... I like this:
"Herein lies the deabstraction logic, in the ability to reliably and consistently make sense of how things systemize at any class of abstraction (conceptual, and/or logical and /or physical), then to adaptively progress (read evolutionary step) to another level of abstraction thereafter (repeat: conceptual, and/or logical, and /or physical) on the basis of such sense-making, but not on that basis alone. " My view of AGI is holistic, and I like thinking in terms of abstracting from the whole -- as opposed to something like manipulating discrete symbols and propositions etc. But "deabstraction" conjures up images of some kind of calculus operation on the whole idea. On 4/12/17, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]> wrote: > "That is the abstraction problem of AGI. For example, is health a more > significant domain than finance? Is public service better for the AGI than > bettering the skills of the AGI?" > > I see no abstraction problem with AGI. The examples you posed as problems > are fairly easily resolvable via existential logic. "Domain Provable" > probabilistic choices flow from existential logic. That is where a sense of > correctness is born in the mind of humans, and it could be so in > computerized machines also. And once sense is established, consciousness > becomes possible. However, it does return me to the obvious need for an > adequate, <deabstraction> methodology. > > > "The issue is, where will AGI get the assumptions? And, how rigorous will > the process be for accepting a new assumption?" > > The relative terms 'right' and 'wrong', 'good' and 'bad' etc. carry their > own poison. I prefer to use the term 'correct', to relate a decision to a > scenario option. Indeed, 'correct' also denotes a judgment, but it more > strongly denotes the testable outcome of an assumption, relative to a > knowledge base. > > AGI would get its assumptions from learning, per contextual schema, what a > scale of correctness would result in. Instead of just the two poles of > 'correct' and 'not correct', many other points of correctness could be > defined and placed on such a scale to introduce decision granularity, and so > increase the overall probability of an assumption becoming testable relative > to reality. > > How rigorous will the process be for accepting a new assumption? Not > rigorous at all. The "most true, or most correct" result would always inform > the validity and reliability of any assumption. The strongest genes would > survive. > For example: Start - logic, then assumption, then else chain > reaction. The value on the "correctness" scale would provide the > loop-until value <x>. Exit. End. > > ________________________________ > From: Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]> > Sent: 12 April 2017 09:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] I Still Do Not Believe That Probability Is a Good Basis > for AGI > > > "Okay, but this begs the question of how you define AGI. Domain knowledge > is the distinguishing point of what might be called regular AI. It is the > General part of AGI that doesn't allow a domain intense approach." > > I do not have my own definition of AGI. Any accepted definition is fine by > me, but I understand AGI to mean that a computerized machine would be able > to exhibit human functionality via human-like brain functionality, as > sentient intelligence. In the main, domain knowledge pertains to knowledge > about any domain. Knowledge to me is not AI, but it could be argued to be > so. To me, AI is reasoning towards knowledge. > > On the contrary, I would contend that it is exactly the General part of AGI, > which most allows for a domain intense approach. If we replaced the broader > term 'domain', with a more specialized term, 'schema', and expanded it to > specifically mean 'contextual schema', would your argument still hold > equally strongly? > > > ________________________________ > From: Stanley Nilsen <[email protected]> > Sent: 12 April 2017 05:16 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] I Still Do Not Believe That Probability Is a Good Basis > for AGI > > On 04/11/2017 10:00 PM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies wrote: > > The moment relationships of any functional value (associations), and any > framework of hierarchy (systems) can be established and tested against all > known (domain) knowledge, and even changed if the rules driving such a > hierarchy should change (adapted), it may be regarded as a concrete version > of a probabilistic framework. > > > Okay, but this begs the question of how you define AGI. Domain knowledge is > the distinguishing point of what might be called regular AI. It is the > General part of AGI that doesn't allow a domain intense approach. > > Is it accepted that the "general" indicates that we are looking across > domains into the realm of all domains? And, we have to choose between > actions coming from multiple domains. One might call this "meta-domain" > knowledge. Such knowledge, I believe, would require abstraction. That is > the abstraction problem of AGI. For example, is health a more significant > domain than finance? Is public service better for the AGI than bettering > the skills of the AGI? Choices, choices, choices... > > > To contend: Probability may not be a "good" basis for AGI, similarly as love > may not be a good basis for marriage, but what might just be a "good" basis > is a reliable engine (reasoning and unreasoning computational framework) for > managing relativity with. This is where philosophy started from, unraveling > a reasoning ontology. > > > I don't think probability is a problem. A piece of knowledge may increase > the chance that we see the situation accurately, and accuracy will help us > be more specific about our response. That said, it is the way we put > assumptions together that will determine our final action. > > Probability has been used in that we think our assumptions are "probably" > right. It is the qualifying of our assumptions that distinguishes the > quality of our actions. Adopt sloppy assumptions and your results will > probably not always be appropriate or best - not super intelligent. > > An "advanced" system will have some mechanism for adopting assumptions (most > currently rely on the judgment of the programmer.) It is this process of > evaluating assumptions that we tend to get abstract. Since we are calling > these "heuristics" assumptions, there is an implication that we can't prove > this premise that we are adopting. Most likely we can't prove because the > premise we choose to build on is abstract - at least has elements of > abstraction that won't allow a clear logical conclusion. > > The issue is, where will AGI get the assumptions? And, how rigorous will > the process be for accepting a new assumption? > > > > > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpgecd5649.jpg?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2ZlZWQtaWNvbi0xMHgxMC5qcGc]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> > > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.pngecd5649.png?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2xpc3Rib3gtbG9nby1zbWFsbC5wbmc] > <http://www.listbox.com> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpgecd5649.jpg?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2ZlZWQtaWNvbi0xMHgxMC5qcGc]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> > | > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.pngecd5649.png?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2xpc3Rib3gtbG9nby1zbWFsbC5wbmc] > <http://www.listbox.com> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpgecd5649.jpg?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2ZlZWQtaWNvbi0xMHgxMC5qcGc]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> > | > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.pngecd5649.png?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2xpc3Rib3gtbG9nby1zbWFsbC5wbmc] > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > AGI | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpgecd5649.jpg?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2ZlZWQtaWNvbi0xMHgxMC5qcGc] > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.pngecd5649.png?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2xpc3Rib3gtbG9nby1zbWFsbC5wbmc] > <http://www.listbox.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
