Steve,
This is more or less where I came into this group. You've picked a, if not the,
classic AGI problem. The problem that distinguishes it from narrow AI.
Problematic, no right answer. And every option could often be wrong. I tried to
open a similar problem for discussion way back - how do you invest in the
stockmarket right now? There are an infinity of such problems.
The problem with such problems is that you can''t program for them. Why?
Because 1) neither you nor your AGI if you have one, know the right answer.
There ain't one. In fact, every option could be wrong. And mistakes can be
expensive. ANd you may have got things fundamentally wrong (as per the ulcer
problem). And 2) you and your AGI are "learner-livers", so you may not only
have got things fundamentally wrong at the domain level, but at the
cross-domain, still deeper level of how to learn and how to solve problems
generally. (And Bayes won't help you if your assumptions are fundamentally
wrong). You have to find out how to deal with these problems - and how to
learn and solve problems generally - as you go along, and you never stop
learning.
If you think you've got a way of programming - in effect, a "right way to live"
- for problems one has - by definition - inadequate knowledge about at every
level - and can usually *never* get adequate, definitive knowledge about, pray
tell - with reference to your particular problem..
This is the most central question in AGI, and my experience is- everyone avoids
it like the plague.
P.S. A psychologist would point out that you may well have unconsciously
intended "v. sick puppy" as a metaphor for AGI :} .
Steve:
I am right now up against an "understanding" issue that might be a worthy
foil for the present discussions.
The thing to be understood:
My daughter is a pug dog breeder, and considering my health interests, she
gave me a "hopeless" case failure-to-thrive puppy to try to save ~3 days ago,
that was apparently within hours of death upon arrival. Theories abound as to
what the underlying problem is, so it would appear that the best course to
success would be one that considers as many possibilities as possible.
Saleable puppies are worth ~US$1K each, whereas UNsaleable puppies have a
large negative value because of the great difficulties in disposition thereof.
Therefore, extensive testing for hypothyroidism, Addison's, etc. have been
tentatively ruled out on the theory that a puppy with such a problem would be
worth more dead than alive, so why bother testing or treating such a puppy?
Present theories:
1. The vet thinks that evidence of hydrocephalus, failure of the bones on
the top of the skull to fuse together, may indicate a brain disorder. He thinks
that some combination of a splitting headache and mis-wiring of the metabolic
control system resulting from this explains everything.
2. I see that the puppy's temperature is running low and he greatly likes to
sit at the outlet of an electric heater, and he looks weeks younger than he
actually is, so perhaps his development is retarded due to a metabolic disorder
of some sort, and the failure of the bones in his skull to fuse is just another
part of retarded development - in short, that the vet may have cause and effect
reversed.
3. My lady decided to try treating the puppy as though it were the age that
it appeared to be - small enough to still be nursing, so she started feeding it
a goat's milk formula, and it seems to be doing much better.
4. My daughter thinks everything is genetic and keeps a mental scoreboard of
the problems with the puppies coming from each bitch. When one has had too many
problem puppies, she neuters the bitch and sells it.
Knowledge and experience would seem to favor the vet's theory. Unfortunately,
there is no success path leading from this theory, so why even bother to
consider it, even if it may very well be correct?
My metabolic theories may be a little better, because there are ways of
surviving with hypothyroidism, Addison's. etc. However, "success" would still
leave a negative-value result.
My lady's implied theory of slow development would, if correct, lead to the
best result - perhaps even a new sort of mineature pug that might be of
astronomical value as a stud.
My daughter's theory, though draconian in nature, does work at the heart of
such problems. However, where problems have hidden familial or environmental
origins, it has the problem that it can lead to some really bad decisions, as
neutering a good breeder reduces a ~US$5K dog to ~US$500 in value and
eliminates the source of future ~US$1K puppies.
As you can see, technical correctness of a theory ends up having secondary
value compared with potential result. I have also seen this in automobile
repair, where the best theory is the one with the least expensive correction.
At least where you are wrong, the cost is minimized.
Any thoughts?
Steve Richfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
