Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard: Consider yourself corrected: many people realize the
importance of
generalization (and related processes).
People go about it in very different ways, so some are more specific
and up-front about it than others, but even the conventional-AI people
(with whom I have many disagreements on other matters) realize the
importance of it, and are trying to do something about it.
As for what "AGI systembuilders" are doing, you can take it from me
that my own system is deeply rooted in the concept of generalization.
Richard,
We have another of your misreadings in haste here - something of a
Q.E.D. misreading. I can do no better than requote my opening lines
(please read carefully) :
"There's a simple misreading here. No way am I
saying nobody is looking at the problem! I am saying nobody is
offering a solution! And none of the AGI systembuilders present or
past have *acknowledged* that they haven't offered a solution -
otherwise they wouldn't have made such large claims. And I am not
aware of anyone even offering an equivalent of the General Test I
just offered."
Like nearly everyone else, you are indeed looking at the problem, and
even claiming again a solution, but have so far actually offered bupkes
:) - cetainly in relation to the generalization problem/ test. And until
you do, it remains to be seen whether you are even actually addressing
the problem. I am suggesting - and I shall be delighted to eat my words
- that this is the central one of what Mark Waser identified as the
unacknowledged, "a-miracle-will-happen-here" holes in not just Ben's but
everyone's project plans. And indeed it is also the central reason why
as Wozniak, pace Storrs Hall, more or less identified - computers &
AGI's and, to some extent, robots are "Tommy's" (and then some) - deaf,
dumb and blind quadriplegics, who while they may be extraordinary
autistic savants, are still unable to deal with the real world.
Perhaps better to wait for my next post before replying.
I'm sorry, but I think this argument is losing coherence.
If you are complaining that no-one has solved the problem of
generalization then you are (to coin a phrase) saying bupkes :-).
According to that way of thinking, nobody has 'solved" anything until
Delivery Day.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that someone has a part of their
plans that belongs in the "a-miracle-will-happen-here" category (an dyou
do indeed say this, no?), then you are saying that that person is
ignoring it, trying to pretend they don't need it, not aware of the fact
that it is missing-but-crucial, etc etc. In a nutshell, they are not
working on it, and they should be.
Those two types of critique are not the same.
Once again I am deeply confused about what you are criticising. Perhaps
the fault is mine, but when I read what you write, I get the feeling
that the left hand paragraphs knoweth not what the right hand paragraphs
sayeth...
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=93139505-4aa549
