Mike, On 5/14/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. >
At least we are on the same page. > > The problem with such problems is that you can''t program for them. > But ... THAT is exactly what my Dr. Eliza program was intended to address!!! Why? > YES - let's dive into the presumptions that I believe are leading AGI astray. Because > 1) neither you nor your AGI if you have one, know the right answer. > Is the operative word here "the" or "right" or "answer"? a) "the" is probably a misdirection, because there are probably several "right" answers. b) "right" has many shades of gray, e.g. cures are greatly preferred to treatments, and some cures/treatments are better than others. Often/usually there is more concern for the costs of being wrong than for the benefit of being correct. c) "answer" implies that the AGI is making the decision, rather than the user. Ultimately, at least in this case, it is the caregiver who makes the final decision where to invest their money and/or effort. There ain't one. In fact, every option could be wrong. > Note that each of the "options" describes a complex cause-and-effect chain, but they have some common links, e.g. the sick puppy is clearly metabolically impaired, though whatever link leads to this link is unclear. Further, there are a very finite number of potential links leading to metabolic impairment (dehydration, organ malfunction, brain malfunction, premature weaning, etc.) And mistakes can be expensive. > Indeed, the primary initial effort is to minimize the cost of mistakes while further information is being gathered. Here, we have kept the puppy alive for 2 days longer than it was estimated to live, and it seems to be getting better. Unfortunately, care has been SO careful regarding the many hazards indicated by various theories that little additional information has been gathered, other than the puppy probably does NOT have really serious brain damage, because it gets up out of its bed to eliminate, and sticks really close to one particular adult dog (his father). ANd you may have got things fundamentally wrong (as per the ulcer problem). > In this case, most theories MUST be wrong because they are mutually exclusive. 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. > Hopefully, frequent updating of the problem statement being analyzed will compensate for errors here. (And Bayes won't help you if your assumptions are fundamentally wrong). > I think that the key here is to DO SOMETHING. Changing the situation will act as an experiment and result in gathering more information to be placed into the problem statement. The key is to not go too far and kill the puppy by continuing in any particular wrong direction. Obviously, the puppy would have been dead before the sun set if he hadn't been fed SOMETHING. His choice of goat's milk formula over the best available puppy food tells a LOT. 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. > There are SO many subtle clues that suggest cause and effect chain links. The BIG problem with puppies over people is that you can't simply ask them direct questions. I have been indirectly asking questions by offering the puppy varying things to eat and drink and observing his preferences, offering warm and cool environments to choose between, etc. In the case of people, really subtle clues guide this process, e.g. most metabolic problems result in what the military calls IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) malfunctions in the immune system, which then cause "minor" symptoms like allergies, asthma, minor infections, etc. There may be a really MAJOR presenting symptom like cancer or COPD (emphysema), but these almost always go along with many minor symptoms which the patient may have completely dismissed as a part of being quite normal. Once you know that (for example) there is a metabolic (cellular environment) problem, the list of usual culprits is relatively short and easy to check, and most of these problems are easily fixed. Note that the medical/legal system has made this approach ILLEGAL and will take away the medical license of any physician who does this! I have seen a couple of very good doctors go through this process. The problem is that doctors, and most especially the doctors on the medical quality assurance boards, have absolutely no applicable education or experience in these areas, and so quickly dismiss them as quackery, rather than consider the prospect that there are some REALLY important things about which they are completely unaware, and that they have been killing their friends and patients for decades. > > 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. > Dr Eliza (if everyone's questionable "knowledge" had been entered into it) would simply identify ALL of the potential cause-and-effect chain links, and identify any cures or treatments on a link-by-link basis. The user would concentrate on links with cures or treatments, which would effectively ignore the vet's theories of incurable illness. Dr. Eliza would ask more questions like what is it that the puppy does like to eat or drink in order to separate theories, which would lead to the same experiments that we have been doing. Note that if there is something non-fatal wrong with the puppy, that my approach leads to the worst possible economic result - an UNsaleable puppy that probably must be cared for until it dies of natural causes. The problem with COMPLETELY logical approaches is that they assign no moral value to decisions, even when they potentially involve euthanasia of viable creatures. IMHO, the programming needed to tackle such problems is rather simple (though the tables are definitely NOT simple), but is COMPLETELY different than anything (else) being discussed on this board. Most postings reflect a lack of understanding of the fine structure of real-world problems. > > P.S. A psychologist would point out that you may well > have unconsciously intended "v. sick puppy" as a metaphor for AGI :} . > The sick puppy problem is a classic, and its solution is valuable. I have been considering enhancing Dr. Eliza for failure-to-thrive puppies, which constitute ~10% of small breed puppies. This would potentially save several thousand dollars per year to any breeder, and has none of the usual political problems that curing people has. Note in passing that I have managed to find ways around the legal minefield in working on people. I never charge anything, but neither do I turn down gifts, e.g. my daughter received a used BMW on her 16th birthday from one of my patients. I precede any (rare) prescriptions with words like "please request that your medical doctor prescribe the following:" knowing that they will probably just order it over the Internet, etc. Steve Richfield ================== > 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 <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
