Richard, On 5/18/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Richfield wrote:
<large snip> With luck we can wring things out at this level. With a little less luck, >> a couple of weeks of attempted high-level design will lead you to these same >> conclusions. With no luck at all, you will dismiss the need for high-level >> design guiding the functionality of low-level modules and continue on your >> present bottom-up path, and quite probably spend much of your life working >> on this apparently impossible and useless module. >> > > The above text is gibberish. Matt seemed able to deal with it. You make wild, sweeping and sometimes incoherent statements about people and > their work, based on complete ignorance of what those people are actually > doing. Not 100% complete ignorance. Can we agree on 95%? I do believe that AGI is possible, but my agreement with any of the viewpoints about how an AGI might be constructed stops with that simple statement. I see lots of counter-evidence of any understanding of the real world of natural language (and that ~50% of real-world sentences will be mis-diagrammed using good grammar rules), of the structure of real-world problems (that they are usually a mental phenomena and not a real-world phenomena). I have enough experience with software that WORKS in these problematical domains to make some accurate statements about the domains themselves, even though you might disagree on my software views. > Your "Dr. Eliza" may be a modestly useful program, within its own terms of > reference. But it has nothing to do with AGI. Allow me to restate the above in different terms that maybe we can both agree on: There is nothing "intelligent" about Dr. Eliza - it is a curious knowledge management program. It doesn't recognize patterns, learn, experiment, argue, or do any of the usual things that we attribute to "intelligence". However, it DOES accomplish some of the more useful goals that people have been hoping that a future AGI can do - some of the things that don't require recognizing patterns, learning, experimentation, argument, etc. My point is that there is no reason NOT to use what works now while we work on something better, and the fact that Dr. Eliza does anything useful at all tells us a LOT about the nature of complex problems, human speech and writing, knowledge structure, what is currently missing on the Internet and Wikipedia, etc. My entire thesis was that the present AGI effort here really hasn't even started the "analysis" phase, as evidenced by the lack of so many considerations that were wrung out in creating Dr. Eliza. Nearly all of the postings that I see here are about design issues, which cannot be usefully approached until analysis has been substantially completed. You appear to be discussing the details (that are in my 95% ignorance area) to create modules that cannot work (for reasons that would be obvious in analysis) and even if they could work, would have no place in an AGI system (due to the incompatibility between correct- and erroneous-paradigm statements). My unsupported suspicion is that most of the posters here generally do NOT understand foreign languages (some of which express the world VERY differently), have NOT become world-class experts in multiple domains (to see the extreme parallels between domains and problems therein), and haven't even bothered to diagram a few dozen real-world sentences to see that the grammar rules that everyone seems so willing to "bet the farm" on simply don't work. In short, without a substantial breadth of real-world knowledge and experience, there is simply no hope of designing an AGI that isn't just as myopic. That my writings appear to be gibberish to you is proof (at least to me) of this point. It appears that you are on the "with no luck at all" path that I outlined above. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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
