Mike Dougherty wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 1:55 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, that would be a serious miusunderstanding of the framework and
development environment that I am building. Your system would be just
as easy to build as any other.
... considering the proliferation of AGI frameworks, it would appear
that "any other" framework is pretty easy to build, no? ok, I'm being
deliberately snarky - but if someone wrote about your own work the way
you write about others, I imagine you would become increasingly
defensive.
You'll have to explain, because I am honestly puzzled as to what you
mean here.
I am not a published computer scientist. I recognize there are a lot
of brains here working at a level beyond my experience. I was only
pointing out that using language like "just as easy to build" to
trivialize "your system" could be confrontational. It may not
deliberately offend anyone, either because they are also not concerned
about this nuance or they discount your attitude as a matter of
course.
Well, no: I think for anyone who understood what I was saying, no
"attitude" would have been seen there. None intended, certainly: it
was just a simple boring statement of fact, not a trivialization of anyone.
I think with slightly different sentence constructions your
ideas would be better received and sound less condescending. That's
all I was saying on that.
I mean "framework" in a very particular sense (something that is a
"theory generator" but not by itself a theory, and which is complete
account of the domain of interest). As such, there are few if any
explicit frameworks in AI. Implicit ones, yes, but not explicit. I do
not mean "framework" in the very loose sense of "bunch of tools" or
"bunch of mechanisms".
hmm... I never considered framework in that context. I thought
framework referred to more of a scaffolding to enable work. As such,
a scaffolding makes a specific kind of building. Though I can see how
it can be general enough to apply the technique to multiple building
designs.
As for the comment above: because of that problem I mentioned, I have
evolved a way to address it, and this approach means that I have to
devise a framework that allows an extremely wide variety of Ai systems
to be constructed within the framework (this was all explained in my
paper). As a result, the framework can encompass Ben's systems as
easily as any other. It could even encompass a system built on pure
mathematical logic, if need be.
I believe I misunderstood your original statement. This clarification
makes more sense.
Oh, nobody expects it to arise "automatically" - I just want the
system-building process to become more automated and less hand-crafted.
Again, I agree this is a good goal - but isn't it akin to optimizing
too early in a development process? Sure, there are well-known
solutions to certain classes of problem. Building a sloppy
implementation to those solutions is foolish when there are existing
'best practice' methods. Is there currently a best practice way to
achieve AI?
Jeepers, no!! There are narrow solutions to little issues that can be
optimized, which arguably cannot be added to each other in any way, let
alone integrated into a full AGI, let alone be optimal in a full AGI.
I think we are having this discussion because of a confusion about
context. All of this is about the particular program of research that I
have adopted. Within that context, there is no premature optimization
going on: in fact, exactly the opposite. It is the most extreme form
of not optimizing too early that you could possibly think of.
Let me preemptively agree that we should all continuously
strive to implement better practices than we may currently be
comfortable with - we should be doing that anyway. (how can we build
self-improving systems if we are not examples of such ourselves)
My guess is that any system that is generalized enough to apply across
design paradigms will lack the granular details required for actual
implementation.
On the contrary, that is why I have spent (am still spending) such an
incredible amount of effort on building the thing. It is entirely
possible to envision a cross-paradigm framework.
With a different understanding of your use of "framework" I am less
dubious of this position.
Give me about $10 million a year in funding for the next three years,
and I will deliver that system to your desk on January 1st 2011.
Well, I'd love to have the cash on hand to prove you wrong. It would
be a nice condition to have for both of us.
There is, though, the possibility that a lot of effort could be wasted
on yet another AI project that starts out with no clear idea of why it
thinks that its approach is any better than anything that has gone
before. Given the sheer amount of wasted effort expended over the last
fifty years, I would be pretty upset to see it happen yet again.
Considering the amount of wasted effort in every other sector that I
have experience with, I think you should keep your expectations low.
Again, I would like to be wrong.
Well, that is the truly sad part of it.
If my paper turns out to be right in the long run, then it will turn out
that the waste of effort in AI has been continuous and monstrous, for
the last fifty years. Not only that, but it could be that the prize is
only just out of reach, waiting for us to change our attitude.
This is not just speculation on my part (not just wishful thinking),
this characterization is specifically predicted by the analysis I gave.
We'll see.
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=80182856-4072e2
