Alright, agreed with all you say. If I understood correctly, your system (at the moment) assumes scene descriptions at a level higher than pixels, but certainly lower than objects. An application of such system seems be a simulated, virtual world where such descriptions are at hand... Is this indeed the direction you're going?
Greets, Durk On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Kingma, D.P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Vector graphics can indeed be communicated to an AGI by relatively > > low-bandwidth textual input. But, unfortunately, > > the physical world is not made of vector graphics, so reducing the > > physical world to vector graphics is quite lossy (and computationally > > expensive an sich). I'm not sure whether you're assuming that vector > > graphics is very useful for AGI, but I would disagree. > > > > I referred to manually providing explanation in conversational format. > Of course it's lossy, but whether it's lossy compared to the real > world is not an issue, it's much more important how it compares to > 'gist' scheme that we extract from full vision. It's clearly not much. > Vision allows to attend to any of huge number of details present in > the input, but there are only few details seen at a time. When a > specific issue needs a spacial explanation, it can be carried out by > explicitly specifying its structure in vector graphics. > > > > > > > Prewiring sensory input in a certain way merely pushes learning in > > > certain direction, just like inbuilt drives bias action in theirs. > > > > Who said perception needs to be prewired? Perception should be made > > efficient by exploiting statistical regularities in the data, not > > assuming them per se. Regularities in the data (captured by your world > > model) should tell you where to focus your attention on *most* of the > > time, not *all* the time ;) > > > > By prewiring I meant a trivial level, like routing signals from the > retina to certain places in the brain, from the start suggesting that > nearby pixels on the retina are close together, and making temporal > synchrony of signals to be approximately the same as in image on the > retina. Bad prewiring would consist in sticking signals from pixels on > the retina to random parts of the brain, with random delays. It would > take much more effort to acquire good visual perception in this case > (and would be impossible on brain wetware). > > -- > > Vladimir Nesov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
