Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard:
Mike:An investor will want to know
what creative ideas you have that *directly* start to solve that
problem.
R:These are available! Both Ben and I have detailed plans. Neither of us
say "just trust me".I think you might be getting confused about what is
publicly available
on this list and what exists and is available for qualified investors to
examine.
I might be getting confused - or rather, I am quite consciously bearing
that in mind. Let me just say then: I have not heard a *creative* new
idea here that directly addresses and shows the power to solve even in
part the problem of creating general intelligence. (I think BTW that
MW's detailed critique of Ben's work essentially added up to that -
though he might want to dissociate himself from that conclusion). Nor
have I heard any emphasis on the "creative" part. It's not enough to be
new and different, or to have an incredibly detailed plan, you have to
have ideas that directly address & start to solve the problem and are
radical. I have heard a great deal though from various sources about
how it's *not* necessary to be that creative or revolutionary - about
how just adapting existing techniques will lead to the promised land -
which, frankly, is a joke.
The only discussion here that I can remember even starting to suggest a
creative idea directly addressing the problem was with Ben - he claims
that his pet is capable of general analogy - certainly one if not the
basis of general intelligence - that, having learned to fetch a ball,
his pet spontaneously learned to play hide-and-seek. Great, I said, if
you can demonstrate that, you've got a major creative breakthrough - you
can and should go public right now. You can bet Hawkins would. No reply.
No exposition of his idea for producing such analogies. No comments or
interest from anyone else.
There are a lot of discussions here about *tangential* matters - but
when it comes to the central problem(s) - the hard, creative problem -
how does you agent move into *new* domains? - discussion evaporates.
And I was glad to see Bob expressing something I have often thought -
how often people in this field *gesture* at ideas, which are too awesome
to be declared publicly. Now that might be partly justified in other
creative fields. In many fields of invention, a creative idea about,
say, using some new material or preparing it in a new way might, if
expressed, be immediately stolen. But not here. Here any creative idea
will be totally dependent on a massive amount of implementation. Hawkins
had a fairly big creative idea with his HTM - even if it's a flawed
idea. But no one can walk away and immediately implement such an idea.
So actually, in this field, it's in your and everyone's interest to
declare your main ideas publicly and get as much feedback as pos. - and
incentive and opportunity to refine those ideas. (By all means, BTW
point to a creative idea of yours that directly addresses the problem of
creating general intelligence - or to anyone else's).
Sure: the "Complex Systems" paper that I presented at the AGIRI 2006
workshop. You may disagree with its conclusions, but there is no way
that you can call it anything less than radical. It is certainly not
about just more of the same old approach!
Secondly, you can look at the recent cognitive neuroscience paper of
mine (co-authored with Trevor Harley) in which I lay out some of the
details of my model and show that it is better able to explain a random
sampling of brain-imaging papers than (most of) those papers did themselves.
Beyond that, it is not in my interest to say too much in public about my
ideas.
But, I am working on a compromise document that does give more detail
without going too far. I'll let you know when that is ready.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=66454152-df5185
