Steve:No one here is really planning to do wonderful things that people can't reasonably do,
Why don't you specify examples of the problems you see as appropriate for exploration? Your statement *sounds* a little confused - it may not be. The big challenge for an AGI is to solve the problems that people *can* solve reasonably all the time - although often with mixed results - but that narrow AI's can't. Those are the problematic, wicked, ill-structured problems where the solver, by definition, doesn't know what to do. From learning to walk, talk, have conversations about food, the weather or football, play with your toys, get your mommy to change her mind, write a story on what you did yesterday, plan your morning or a visit to the shops, write an essay, or a post to your AGI group, or play football, or hide-and-seek, or even decide whether to take a left or a right round the person blocking your way etc etc. These are the problems where you have to work out what to do as you go along, involving various forms of ad hoc thought, investigation, research, and experiment. You only have a rough idea of where you want to get to, and you have to go out and *find* a way to get there, *without* a predefined set of instructions for looking. You're not likely to find anyone in the whole of AGI present and past to discuss these sort of problems with you, let alone any still more complicated problems, like invention (of say a cheaper gasoline alternative). Logic problems, maths problems, programming problems, turing machine problems, where you do know what to do, yes. But not problems where you don't The insurmountable difficulty that everyone has is that condition of "problems where you don't know what to do.* Everyone AFAIK accepts this definition/goal, and then proceeds to cheat on it completely. They say "sure I'll deal with that problem, but I'll just get someone to tell my AGI what to do first." And they do all this without blushing, or sense of irony. They don't even know they're cheating. It's not just this group, it's everyone AFAIK without exception. You see, if "you don't know what to do," then you don't have a definitive method, or set of rules for solving the problem, (and that includes rules for how to investigate or research the problem). You certainly have *some* methods and rules, but not - and never - a complete set of rules. It shouldn't be that hard to accept what I've just said - it's all common sense. Anyone disagree with me? Anyone think AGI involves solving problems where you *do* know exactly what to do?. But here's why people have such difficulties and are so congenitally incapable of facing the problem of AGI directly. Let me redefine what I've just said - i.e. "AGI involves solving problems where you don't know what to do". Any proper redefinition must involve: "AGI involves solving problems WITHOUT an algorithm." That's the part people find so tough. But there's no way around it. It's obvious - if you have an algorithm, you "know what to do," you're cheating. But no one in AGI knows how to design or instruct a machine to work without algorithms - or, to be more precise, *complete* algorithms. It's unthinkable - it seems like asking someone not to breathe... until, like every problem,. you start thinking about it. ------------------------------------------- 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
