What other list of specific goals though would you posit a first generation AGI 
accomplishing other than the ones I mentioned?

James Ratcliff

Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:       I think you're thinking in too 
limited ways about  the physical tasks, simulated or embodied - although that 
may be the fault of my  definition.
  
 You don't, I would suggest, program AGi  machines primarily, say, to run 
mazes. You program them primarily to move  towards "goals" by moving around 
"obstacles" - very generally. Mazes are the  particular form of obstacles and 
whatever prizes they contain are the particular  form of goals, that you 
initially teach the machines.
  
 Also you give them general goals as animals have  like "food" or "fuel" which 
can in principle be instantiated in an infinite  variety of particular forms - 
so they can always be open to adding new forms to  their motivations.
  
 You also I guess (I'm thinking aloud here) give  them a drive to move around 
and explore - possibly for its own sake. If they  have a drive to explore new 
territories beyond those of mazes for new forms of  food, there is obviously 
potential to develop a set of very different  activities.
  
 You also give them (thinking further aloud) the  capacity to form subgoals - 
(but Gawd knows immediately how to do it) - so that  certain subgoals and 
subactivities, can become primary - as play eventually  becomes in animals.  
Also visual or sensory exploration of the environment  ("sightseeing") could 
become detached as an activity in itself, not just  always in service of 
getting through the maze to the food. Especially if the  robot has free time on 
its hands.
  
 I think any AGI machine  will have to have a  mind structured by a tree of 
several levels of generality and particularity -  and be capable therefore of 
thinking in very general ways of "goals", "moves",  "obstacles," "food" "paths" 
etc.  - and continually adding more and more  particular examples of each.  
(Ben & I seem to agree here) And  that tree is key to its adaptivity. 
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    James Ratcliff    
   To: [email protected] 
   Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:49    PM
   Subject: Re: [agi] The University of    Phoenix Test [was: Why do you think 
your AGI design will work?]
   

So basically it appears there are 3 areas of possible AGI Test    Applciations:
1. Non-Natural Language Required Tasks.
  - Question    Answering (little comprehension)
  - specific programmed    tasks
  - Most AI work, vision, sound, etc
2. Natural Language    Tasks (advanced parsing and comprehension)
  - conversations, Turing    Tests, advanced interactive tasks. 
3. Embodied Tasks
  Either    virtual or robot.
  movement and smart interaction with the    environment, to complete tasks.

Can an AGI be built at all that first    into area 1?
It seems too limited to me (rough delineated definitions above    granted)
I think any system in one is written for a specific task, chess,    maze 
solving, etc.

So does it require 2 and/or 3 and which is    better.
#2 I think would qualify as an AGI, if it could talk and pass the    Turing 
test and converse.  How useful is it though, what kind of system    does it 
create?
Only expert systems for a domain, or chatbots?

#3    Video game characters or robots are an AGI as well, but how limiting are 
they    if they dont have complex language skills to be given and learn ever    
increasingly complex tasks to do.

Mike Tintner    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   Nobody      came back on my 
suggestion for a much simpler AGI test. Let's call it      
the Neo-Maze Test.

You program a robot rover or simulation robot      with flexible rules to run 
fairly basic-type mazes, including mazes with      multiple solutions.

The test is then whether it can run very      different kinds of neo-mazes (to 
be 
set by other programming teams) -      let's say, mazes with holes-in-the-wall, 
large open squares,      roundabouts, spaghetti junctions, underpasses, ramps, 
traffic lights and      traffic problems etc. etc. - for which its rules have 
NOT equipped it,      but which it does have the basic raw capacity to run.

This will be a      test of its ability to fundamentally adapt its approach to 
an 
activity      to fundamentally altered environments - to adapt its rules, 
steps/ 
moves      and recognized paths to its goals. That, I reckon, is the primary    
  
requirement of AGI. (Animals can do it).

>From there you can move      to ever more complex, and higher-level activity 
tests. But setting your      first goal as passing a language test is to my 
mind 
absurd.

P.S.      Another comparable test would a Video-Game Test, where some 
gameplaying      
agent that is programmed to play something like Pac-Man, will have to      
adapt 
to fundamental variations on that game, with again radical      alterations to 
the game's maze structure and the type of predators it      must deal with, and 
treasures it must find.

Or, thinking of the      link screen on the Novamente site, you could have 
simply 
a Building      Navigation Test - a robot or agent programmed to negotiate 
fairly 
simple      rooms with simple furniture arrangements, and fairly simple 
corridors -      will then have to megotiate ever more complex rooms and 
building      
corridors, ideally the full range of modern architecture. That surely      
would 
be a highly practical test with highly commercial      applications.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Derek Zahn"      
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April      25, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] The University of Phoenix Test [was:      Why do you think 
your AGI design will work?]


> Ben      Goertzel writes:
>
>> I don't think there are any good,      general incremental tests for 
>> progress 
>> toward
>> AGI.      There are just too many different potentially viable approaches,   
>>    
>> with
>> qualitatively different development      arcs.
>
> Nevertheless, I wish somebody would try to specify      some that are perhaps
> not completely general. Without that, the only      way to determine whether 
> any
> progress at all is being made      is by an analysis of internal structures 
> -- 
> pointing to
> a      data structure and making claims about its meaning. And the developers 
>      
> of
> the system are notoriously bad at doing this as they are      too emotionally 
> and
> intellectually tied to the      work.
>
> I wonder at what point our ancesters became "generally      intelligent"? 
> Were 
> humans
> of 10,000 years ago generally      intelligent? If so, why did it take them 
> so 
> many billions
>      of person-years to develop the most rudimentary capabilities that we 
> seem      
> to expect
> our artifical general intelligences to breeze      through effortlessly? I 
> suppose the
> real test is at what      point an individual from the past would be able to 
> pass the      Turing
> test (or some similar thing) if born into our present world      and educated 
> like we were
> and I doubt any scientists could      make any confident guesses about that.
>
> I think that figuring      out a good working definition of general 
> intelligence and
>      demonstratable intermediate steps is the single most important missing   
>    
> piece
> of the endeavor.
>
> -----
> This      list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
> To      unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
>      http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
>
>
>
> --      
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free      Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 
> - 
> Release Date:      00:00
>
> 


-----
This list is sponsored      by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your      options, please go      to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;



_______________________________________
James    Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...      

---------------------------------
   Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new    cars at Yahoo! Autos.    
---------------------------------
   This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To    unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;      

---------------------------------
    
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.    
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - Release Date: <unknown>    00:00

---------------------------------
 This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;


_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...
       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936

Reply via email to