Kirchner, Sweller and Clarks criticism matches my own subjective feelings to a great extent.
However, my theories about how an agi program could learn fits their criticisms as well. I have already given a great deal of thought about how an infant learns, by the way, and I read a number of books that specifically studied some aspects of neo-natal learning as was inferred through the contemporary methods of cognitive science. That certainly does not mean that I (or anyone else) actually understands the details of how humans learn though. The problem of getting a computer program to integrate new information based on previously learned knowledge and previously learned methods of learning, especially those methods of learning that have been shown to be useful with a subject and the way the subject is presented (ie the different ways the the computer program might be exposed to the subject matter) is obviously significant to the question of AI research. It is perfectly reasonable to examine the problem by both studying how humans (or other intelligent creatures) learn and how we can get actual computer programs to learn. I am thinking about writing a program that has highly structured ways of learning where it would be necessary to instruct the computer program to learn by being aware of its tendencies to integrate new information in particular ways. This structural learning would not be human-level learning, but the structural methods would be more sophisticated than any contemporary AI paradigm. If I actually do this, I would hope to achieve an intermediate step toward human-level learning. The goal here is to show, in as simple a manner as possible, how a more sophisticated AI program could integrate new information in a way that the program would demonstrate continued extensibility, at least up to a point. This concept of an intermediate, less ambitious goal, is typical of developing technologies and indeed is typical of the advancement of all knowledge. I mention this because the article reminded me of an idea I have had where I would build a system of learning for a computer program and then study how it works. The thing is though, you have to start with something simple and build up from there. On the other hand, if the program does not show some ability to continue to learn and integrate new information past the bottlenecks that have been encountered with other AI paradigms of the past then it is not likely to be a true intermediate step toward a better AI product. Jim Bromer ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:02:39 AM Subject: Re: [agi] A citicism of minimal guidance during instruction. Interesting paper. But it all depends on what level of intelligence you are looking at. Learning science or medicine is not likely to be the first thing an AGI tackles. You also have to consider how an infant learns about the world. Clearly a great deal of that at least is independent activity - e.g learning to crawl, walk, discriminate objects, follow them visually, play with and experiment with objects - and learning the physical properties of objects, learning the rules of language etc. Jim: > Here is an interesting criticism of minimal guidance during instruction. > http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
