Would two AGI's with the same initial learning program, same hardware
in a controlled environment (same access to a specific learning base-
something like an encyclopedia) learn at different rates and excel in
different tasks?
Mike,
To put my question in another way. Would you like to understand
intelligence? Understand it to such a degree, that you can give a
detailed and non-ambiguous description of how an intelligent system
operates over time? Well, if you do want that, then you want -using
standard terminology- to create an intelligent program.
Why we get upset is because we feel you basically say "I don't want
to understand intelligence" alternatively "intelligence can never
be clearly understood". You have to understand how computer
scientists use the word "program" to understand how we perceive
your statements. From our perspective, your position is not
revolutionary, just depressing.
/Robert Wensman
2008/1/7, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Robert,
Look, the basic reality is that computers have NOT yet been
creative in any significant way, and have NOT yet achieved AGI -
general intelligence, - or indeed any significant rulebreaking
adaptivity; (If you disagree, please provide examples. Ben keeps
claiming/implying he's solved them or made significant advances,
but when pressed never provides any indication of how).
These are completely unsolved problems. Major creative problems.
And I would suggest you have to be prepared for the solutions to be
revolutionary and groundshaking.
If you are truly serious about solving these problems, I suggest,
you should prepared to be "hurt" - you should be ready to consider
truly radical ideas - for the ground on which you stand to be
questioned - and be seriously shaken up. You should WELCOME any and
all of your assumptions being questioned. Even if, let's say, what
I or someone else suggests is in the end nutty, drastic ideas are
good for you to contemplate at least for a while.
Having said all this, I accept that what I have been saying offends
this community - I wasn't trying originally to push it, I got
dragged into some of that last discussion.by Ben. And I also accept
that most of you are not interested in going for the
revolutionary, from whatever source. And I shall try to restrict
my comments unless someone wishes to engage with me - although BTW
I am ever more confident of my broad philosophical/ psychological
position - the mind really doesn't work that way.
I may possibly make one last related post in the not too distant
future about the nature of problems, and which are/aren't suitable
for programs - but just ignore it.
Mike Tinter,
If you really do not think that digital computers can be creative
by definition, I do not understand why you would like to join a
mailing list with AGI researchers? Computers operate by using
software, thus, they need to be programmed. It just seems to me
that you do not understand what the word "program" means. Even if
you use use a computer that do not need to be loaded with a
program, guess what, such a computer could be considered to have an
initial program.
The very determinism of the universe implicates that everything
runs according to a program, including your ramblings here about
creativity. I have to ask you a question, do you think the universe
and everything in it runs according to deterministic laws of
nature? Do you accept that you are a part of this deterministic
reality? Well, in that case Ive got news for you, you are a program
also! As evidence I would present your DNA, a program encoded and
stored in molecular structures.
Have you ever heard of computational equivalence? Do you know what
it means?
Also, I feel annoyed that you compare the Novamente architecture
with something that just takes instructions, like "do this, do
that, then do this" etc. It seems you need to spend greater effort
in studying this architecture, for example by reading The Hidden
Pattern.
I feel you are in great need of widening your mind to understand
chaotic or fractal processes. Take a forest for example, even in
all its complexity and diversity, it is still governed by very
simple and basic laws namely the laws of nature. By mimicking some
of these laws at an appropriate level, such as shape level,
programmers can create forests that to a very large extent looks
like real forests: http://www.speedtree.com/. A generator such as
speedtree could generate entire forests of miles and miles of
trees, with no single two trees looking the same. Even though the
lines of code producing the trees are pretty simple, the outcome in
creativity and originality is vast.
The same thing applies to a human mind. Even though the output of a
human mind is amazingly diverse and creative, its program is still
goverened by the basic laws of nature, and the DNA program. What
AGI designers tries to do is to is to mimic this process.
The concepts of program and determinism are pretty well established
within the scientific community, please do not try to redefine them
like you do. It just creates a lot of confusion. I think what you
really want to use is the concept of adaptability, or maybe you
could say you want an AGI system that is programmed in an indirect
way (meaning that the program instructions are very far away from
what the system actually does). But please do not say things like
"we should write AGI systems that are not programmed". It hurts my
ears/eyes.
/Robert Wensman
2008/1/7, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
Well we (Penrose & co) are all headed in roughly the same
direction, but
we're taking different routes.
If you really want the discussion to continue, I think you have to
put out
something of your own approach here to "spontaneous
creativity" (your terms)
as requested.
Yes, I still see the mind as following "instructions" a la
"briefing", but
only odd ones, not a whole rigid set of them., a la programs. And the
instructions are "open-ended" and non-deterministically open to
interpretation, just as my briefing/instruction to you - "Ben go
and get me
something nice for supper" - is. Oh, and the instructions that
drive us,
i.e. emotions, are always conflicting, e.g [Ben:] "I might like
to.. but do
I really want to get that bastard anything for supper? Or have the
time to,
when I am on the very verge of creating my stupendous AGI?"
Listen, I can go on and on - the big initial deal is the claim that
the mind
isn't - & no successful AGI can be - driven by a program, or
thoroughgoing
SERIES/SET of instructions - if it is to solve even minimal general
adaptive, let alone hard creative problems. No structured approach
will work
for an ill-structured problem.
You must give some indication of how you think a program CAN be
generally
adaptive/ creative - or, I would argue, squares (programs are so
square,
man) can be circled :).
> Mike,
>
>> The short answer is that I don't believe that computer
*programs* can be
>> creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of
enquiry, a
>> predetermined approach to a problem -
> ...
>> But I see no reason why computers couldn't be "briefed" rather than
>> programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than
working along
>> predetermined lines.
>
> But the computer that is being "briefed" is still running some
software
> program,
> hence is still "programmed" -- and its responses are still
determined by
> that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it
> perceives
> only thru a digital bit stream)
>
>> I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are
capable of
>> all
>> the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed
elsewhere) that
>> are
>> also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence.
>
> I don't know how you define a "literally imaginative power".
>
> So, it seems like you are saying
>
> -- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess
> general
> intelligence
>
> Is this your assertion?
>
> It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many
others have
> argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've
quoted could
> be straight out of "The Emeperor's New Mind" by Penrose.
>
> Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same
> stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general
intelligence
> is
> possible only for "quantum gravity computers", which is what he
posits
> the brain is.
>
> I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand
what
> he is saying...
>
> I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is...
>>
- Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM
>
>
-----
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/?&;
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/?&;
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1212 - Release Date:
1/6/2008 10:55 PM
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/?&;
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/?
&
-----
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=82644947-5dc945
