Steve,
Like most people here I'm interested in general intelligence. You seem to be
talking mainly about specific domain intelligence - medical diagnosis - not
say, a computer or agent that will encompass many domains.
My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open
source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and
update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major
possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been
proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing -
assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his
choices.
In the same way, it would be great to have a database that could immediately
make long lists of suggestions for any given set of investment requirements.
That too would clearly have to leave the user to choose.
I'm dubious about any program here making specific recommendations/ diagnoses -
because the medical field like every other professional field is rife with
conflicting opinions about the great majority of areas/illnesses. There are
just so many problematic areas. It's almost the equivalent of a program that
would make political recommendations about how to run a country.
I welcome your rare interest in discussing the end-problems of AGI, (as
distinct from the engineering problems) in detail - but if it's to be AGI it
has to be couched in general terms - you have to explain how your or any
approach will apply across domains. What are the common problem-solving
concepts, say, that will enable a program or agent to think and learn about
"symptoms" of "breakdown"/ "malfunction" or whatever in say, medicine/the human
body, cars/mechanics, plumbing, electrical systems, computer hardware,
nuclear power stations, "sick" plants etc. ?
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 | Modify Your Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
