Brad,

Sorry if my response was somehow harsh or inappropriate, it really wasn't
intended as such.  Your contributions to the list are valued.  These last
few weeks have been rather tough for me in my entrepreneurial role (it's not
the best time to be operating a small business, which is what Novamente LLC
is) so I may be in a crankier mood than usual for that reason.

I've been considering taking a break from this email list myself for a few
weeks or months, not because I don't enjoy the discussions, but because
they're taking so much of my time lately!

I guess the essence of my response to you was

***
What I don't see in your counterproposal is any kind of grounding of your
ideas in a theory of mind.  That is: why should I believe that loosely
coupling a bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets, as you suggest, is going to
lead to an AGI capable of adapting to fundamentally new situations not
envisioned by any of its programmers?   I'm not completely ruling out the
possiblity that this kind of strategy could work, but where's the beef?  I'm
not asking for a proof, I'm asking for a coherent, detailed argument as to
why this kind of approach could lead to a generally-intelligent mind.
***

and I don't really see what is offensive about that, but maybe my judgment
is "off" this week...


-- Ben G


On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Well, I guess you told me!  I'll just be taking my loosely-coupled
> "...bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets..." right on out of here.  No need to
> worry about me venturing an opinion here ever again.  I have neither the
> energy nor, apparently, the intellectual ability to respond to a broadside
> like that from the "top dog."
>
> It's too bad.  I was just starting to fell "at home" here.  Sigh.
>
> Cheers (and goodbye),
> Brad
>
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
>>
>> A few points...
>>
>> 1) Closely associating embodiment with GOFAI is just flat-out historically
>> wrong.  GOFAI refers to a specific class of approaches to AI that wer
>> pursued a few decades ago, which were not centered on embodiment as a key
>> concept or aspect.
>> 2)
>> Embodiment based approaches to AGI certainly have not been extensively
>> tried and failed in any serious way, simply because of the primitive nature
>> of real and virtual robotic technology.  Even right now, the real and
>> virtual robotics tech are not *quite* there to enable us to pursue
>> embodiment-based AGI in a really tractable way.  For instance, humanoid
>> robots like the Nao cost $20K and have all sorts of serious actuator
>> problems ... and virtual world tech is not built to allow fine-grained AI
>> control of agent skeletons ... etc.   It would be more accurate to say that
>> we're 5-15 years away from a condition where embodiment-based AGI can be
>> tried-out without immense time-wastage on making not-quite-ready supporting
>> technologies work....
>>
>> 3)
>> I do not think that humanlike NL understanding nor humanlike embodiment
>> are in any way necessary for AGI.   I just think that they seem to represent
>> the shortest path to getting there, because they represent a path that **we
>> understand reasonably well** ... and because AGIs following this path will
>> be able to **learn from us** reasonably easily, as opposed to AGIs built on
>> fundamentally nonhuman principles
>>
>> To put it simply, once an AGI can understand human language we can teach
>> it stuff.  This will be very helpful to it.  We have a lot of experience in
>> teaching agents with humanlike bodies, communicating using human language.
>>  Then it can teach us stuff too.   And human language is just riddled
>> through and through with metaphors to embodiment, suggesting that solving
>> the disambiguation problems in linguistics will be much easier for a system
>> with vaguely humanlike embodied experience.
>>
>> 4)
>> I have articulated a detailed proposal for how to make an AGI using the
>> OCP design together with linguistic communication and virtual embodiment.
>>  Rather than just a promising-looking assemblage of in-development
>> technologies, the proposal is grounded in a coherent holistic theory of how
>> minds work.
>>
>> What I don't see in your counterproposal is any kind of grounding of your
>> ideas in a theory of mind.  That is: why should I believe that loosely
>> coupling a bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets, as you suggest, is going to
>> lead to an AGI capable of adapting to fundamentally new situations not
>> envisioned by any of its programmers?   I'm not completely ruling out the
>> possiblity that this kind of strategy could work, but where's the beef?  I'm
>> not asking for a proof, I'm asking for a coherent, detailed argument as to
>> why this kind of approach could lead to a generally-intelligent mind.
>>
>> 5)
>> It sometimes feels to me like the reason so little progress is made toward
>> AGI is that the 2000 people on the planet who are passionate about it, are
>> moving in 4000 different directions ;-) ...
>>
>> OpenCog is an attempt to get a substantial number of AGI enthusiasts all
>> moving in the same direction, without claiming this is the **only** possible
>> workable direction.
>> Eventually, supporting technologies will advance enough that some smart
>> guy can build an AGI on his own in a year of hacking.  I don't think we're
>> at that stage yet -- but I think we're at the stage where a team of a couple
>> dozen could do it in 5-10 years.  However, if that level of effort can't be
>> systematically summoned (thru gov't grants, industry funding, open-source
>> volunteerism or wherever) then maybe AGI won't come about till the
>> supporting technologies develop further.  My hope is that we can overcome
>> the existing collective-psychology and practical-economic obstacles that
>> hold us back from creating AGI together, and build a beneficial AGI ASAP ...
>>
>> -- Ben G
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:34 AM, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>    <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>        So, it has, in fact, been tried before.  It has, in fact, always
>>        failed. Your comments about the quality of Ben's approach are
>>        noted.  Maybe you're right.  But, it's not germane to my
>>        argument which is that those parts of Ben G.'s approach that
>>        call for human-level NLU, and that propose embodiment (or
>>        virtual embodiment) as a way to achieve human-level NLU, have
>>        been tried before, many times, and have always failed.  If Ben
>>        G. knows something he's not telling us then, when he does, I'll
>>        consider modifying my views.  But, remember, my comments were
>>        never directed at the OpenCog project or Ben G. personally.
>>         They were directed at an AGI *strategy* not invented by Ben G.
>>        or OpenCog.
>>
>>
>>    The OCP approach/strategy, both in crucial specifics of its parts
>>    and particularly in its total synthesis, *IS* novel; I recommend a
>>    closer re-examination!
>>
>>    The mere resemblance of some of its parts to past [failed] AI
>>    undertakings is not enough reason to dismiss those parts, IMHO,
>>    dislike of embodiment or NLU or any other aspect that has a GOFAI
>>    past lurking in the wings not withstanding.
>>
>>    OTOH, I will happily agree to disagree on these points to save the
>>    AGI list from going down in flames! ;-)
>>
>>    -dave
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
>>    <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify
>>    <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription       [Powered
>> by
>>    Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ben Goertzel, PhD
>> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
>> Director of Research, SIAI
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first
>> overcome "  - Dr Samuel Johnson
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> <
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify <
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription       [Powered by
>> Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first
overcome "  - Dr Samuel Johnson



-------------------------------------------
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=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to