The eternal flaw in all this, it seems to me, is that you are still doing
logic which assumes that agents know what the premises refer to, and those
premises can be taken for granted.
Real world thinking, which is vastly more important and extensive than the
logical variety, is interested in what the premises refer to, and how to
establish the truth of those premises, (as distinct from conclusions that
can be drawn from them).
For example:
Mary says Clinton had sex with her.
Clinton says he did not have sex with her.
Who, and how, is an AGI to believe?
Or:., based on your internet research:
10,000 economists say the US economy is in recession.
9,000 economists say the US economy is not in recession.
Who, and how, is your superAGI to believe?
Real world thinking could also be called scientific thinking. Don't you
think that's somewhat more important than logic for an AGI?
YKY: Here is an example of a problematic inference:
1. Mary has cybersex with many different partners
2. Cybersex is a kind of sex
3. Therefore, Mary has many sex partners
4. Having many sex partners -> high chance of getting STDs
5. Therefore, Mary has a high chance of STDs
What's wrong with this argument? It seems that a general rule is
involved in step 4, and that rule can be "refined" with some
qualifications (ie, it does not apply to all kinds of sex). But the
question is, how can an AGI detect that an exception to a general rule
has occurred?
Or, do we need to explicitly state the exceptions to every rule?
Thanks for any comments!
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
