Hi,
The problem is that we are using the word interfere differently. Most
of what you are calling interference, I would call interaction and claim as
being absolutely necessary. I understand that using the word interfere in
this way is logical if you think of wave interference but it's not what I'm
trying to prevent.
I am using the word interfere solely in a negative sense (i.e. as the
opposite of your "These processes all have to play together nicely as they
are acting on the same data at the same time"). My contention is that the
knowledge collection should enforce nice play.
AI architectures in which cognitive processes do not significantly and
complexly affect each other, via their interactions on a common data
store, are NOT going to be capable of achieving powerful AGI given
limited computational resources...
Agreed. That's the entire point to any blackboard system.
The fact that different cognitive processes "interfere" with each
other [i.e., significantly and complexly affect each others'
activities] is NOT a flaw, it is intentional and it is VERY VERY
NECESSARY.
Change the word in quotes from interfere to interact and you have my
entire agreement.
If classical blackboard systems have so much modularity that each
cognitive process can be tuned independently of the others --- then
very likely these blackboard systems are incapable of giving rise to
the complex emergent dynamics that characterize intelligence.
A very bold statement and one I disagree with entirely. Why would
modularity prevent the emergence of complex behavior?
Processes should always be fine and function correctly if the knowledge
base is in any acceptable state or acceptable dynamic motion (as defined by
the knowledge base). You can end up with a completely complex system with
just two modular process and a modular knowledge base, but you should never
have two processes interfere with each other (in my sense of the word) since
the knowledge base should NEVER be outside the realm of acceptable behavior
and the processes should be able to cope with any acceptable behavior. You
may end up with unexpected behavior like oscillations, etc. but the
processes should NEVER be able to mess each other up and the knowledge base
can (and probably should) be designed to damp oscillations above a certain
frequency and/or amplitude (and prevent other obviously problematical
states). My concern about the Novamente design is that the knowledge base
is not designed to protect itself and one process in the middle of an
operation can destructively interfere with another process in the middle of
a different operation to the extent of breaking one process or the other (or
both).
And, it is very obvious that the parameters of these two cognitive
processes DO affect each other.
Nope, it sounds to me like more conflation of design. If concept
creation is looking for wacky designs, it should merely be advertising for
an inference process whose parameters are set/tuned so that it returns the
results that it is looking for. One thing that it should NOT be expected to
do is to know another process well enough to be able to muck in the internal
workings of that other process. A process should know it's properties for a
given set of parameter setting well enough to advertise them. The last
thing that you should be doing is co-varying parameters all over the map.
It's no wonder that you're having stability problems.
The interactions between the parameter-tunings of different cognitive
processes are necessary in order to make the artificial mind function
effectively as a coherent whole.
You're going to have to back this up for me. I contend that different
cognitive processes should be black boxes to each other with easily
manipulated settings/controls that are a provided abstraction of the
behavior of specific parameter tuning. A process should never be allowed to
muck with the internal workings of another process. One process should be
able to ask another process to return speculative results but it shouldn't
be able to say set alpha to 1.7, beta to 3.4, and gamma to 75.
I am still not sure whether we really disagree, or are just using
words differently -- or some combination of the two.
I think that it's a combination of the two. I think that we agree that
complete interaction and flexibility is necessary. I think that we disagree
about the necessity for and feasibility of good modularity and
encapsulation.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] How the Brain Represents Abstract Knowledge
Mark,
Hmmm.... In this conversation, we seem to be completely talking past
each other and not communicating meaningfully at all...
You say that
In most "blackboard" systems (i.e. those where all processes share
the
same collection of "active knowledge") and, more particularly, in 100% of
those that are generally considered to be well designed, the individual
processes are all forced to follow certain standardized rules (enforced
by
the active knowledge collection itself, NOT the processes) so that the
processes not only don't step on each other, but they CAN'T step on each
other. Due to these rules, the individual processes themselves can't
have
ANY parameters that when tweaked can possibly cause them to interfere
with
other processes. If your design has this problem (i.e. that the active
knowledge collection does not adequately protect itself), then you have a
sub-optimal design. "Blackboard" systems have been around for decades
longer than AGI systems (which are just a very complex sub-class of
"blackboard" systems) and there is a considerable body of work that
pretty
definitively shows that any design with the behaviors that you are
describing CAN be optimized so that it doesn't exhibit those negative
behaviors without losing any functionality.
Apparently you are using the word "interfere" in a radically different
sense than I would in this context, because if I interpret the word
"interfere" in the way I naturally would, then the above paragraph
reads like complete insanity!!
The fact that different cognitive processes "interfere" with each
other [i.e., significantly and complexly affect each others'
activities] is NOT a flaw, it is intentional and it is VERY VERY
NECESSARY.
AI architectures in which cognitive processes do not significantly and
complexly affect each other, via their interactions on a common data
store, are NOT going to be capable of achieving powerful AGI given
limited computational resources...
If classical blackboard systems have so much modularity that each
cognitive process can be tuned independently of the others --- then
very likely these blackboard systems are incapable of giving rise to
the complex emergent dynamics that characterize intelligence. This is
one of the reasons why Novamente is not a classical blackboard
system...
As an example, consider two cognitive processes, acting concurrently
on a common data store:
* concept creation [by blending existing concepts via various heuristics]
* probabilistic inference
The parameters of the concept creation process govern which sorts of
concepts tend to be created -- how different they tend to be from
existing concepts, how general they tend to be, how many created
concepts are related to current goals and how many are just "generally
interesting" etc.
The parameters of the probabilistic inference process govern what
sorts of inferences tend to be drawn -- including such aspects as how
speculative the inferences are, how much effort is spent on a few
highly complex and abstract inferences versus large masses of smiple
inferences etc.
And, it is very obvious that the parameters of these two cognitive
processes DO affect each other. The kinds of concepts needed to
drive highly abstract inferences are different in various subtle ways
than the kinds of concepts needed to drive simple inferences, to give
just one example.... And if highly speculative inferences are to be
focused on, then more whacky and speculative "conceptual blends" are
going to be more valuable... Etc., etc. etc.
The interactions between the parameter-tunings of different cognitive
processes are necessary in order to make the artificial mind function
effectively as a coherent whole.
If you don't agree with this, then indeed we have fundamentally
different intuitions aboutu AGI design. This is fine, but I want to
be clear that the complex interactions between Novamente cognitive
processes is not an accident, nor a compromise made for performance
reasons -- it is a decision made because I believe this kind of
interaction is a critical aspect of general intelligence given limited
computational resources.
I am still not sure whether we really disagree, or are just using
words differently -- or some combination of the two. Talking about
this kind of thing can be very, very hard, due in large part to the
lack of a commonly-understood, precisely-defined vocabulary.
-- Ben G
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
