(Aplogies for inadvertent empty reply to this :-) On Saturday 19 April 2008 11:35:43 am, Ed Porter wrote: > WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
In a single word: feedback. At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter) schemes I've seen can be caricatured as follows: 1. Receive data from sensors. 2. Interpret into higher-level concepts. 3. Then a miracle occurs. 4. Interpret high-level actions from 3 into motor commands. 5. Send to motors. What's wrong with this? It implicitly assumes that data flows from 1 to 5 in waterfall fashion, and that feedback, if any, occurs either within 3 or as a loop thru the external world. Problem is, in brains, there are actually more nerve fibers transmitting data from higher numbers to lower, i.e. backwards, than forwards. I think that the interpretation of sensory input is a much more active process than we AGIers realize, and that doing things requires a lot more sensing. Here's a quip that feels like it has some relevance: "What's the difference between a physicist and an engineer? A physicist is someone who spends all his time building machinery, to help him write an equation. An engineer is someone who spends all his time writing equations, in order to build machinery." Josh ------------------------------------------- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
