This really seems more like arguing that there is no such thing as AI-complete at all. That is certainly a possibility. It could be that there are only different competences. This would also seem to mean that there isn't really anything that is truly general about intelligence, which is again possible.
I guess one thing we're seeing here is a basic example of mathematics as having underlying separate mechanisms from other features of language. The Lakoff and Nunez talk about subitizing (judging small numbers of things at a glance) as one core competancy, and counting as another. These are things you can see in animals that do not use language. So, sure, mathematics could be a separate realm of intelligence. Of course, my response to that is that this kind of basic mathematical ability is needed to understand language. Of course, people who favor language use my not exercise their mathematical ability and it can become weak, but I think it generally has to be there for full competance. And there are some more abstract concepts that could be hard for people to get, and maybe some people don't have what it takes to get some concepts, so the don't have infinite potential. andi Matthias wrote: > Sorry, but this was no proof that a natural language understanding system > is > necessarily able to solve the equation x*3 = y for arbitrary y. > > 1) You have not shown that a language understanding system must > necessarily(!) have made statistical experiences on the equation x*3 =y. > > 2) you give only a few examples. For a proof of the claim, you have to > prove > it for every(!) y. > > 3) you apply rules such as 5 * 7 = 35 -> 35 / 7 = 5 but you have not shown > that > 3a) that a language understanding system necessarily(!) has this rules > 3b) that a language understanding system necessarily(!) can apply such > rules > > In my opinion a natural language understanding system must have a lot of > linguistic knowledge. > Furthermore a system which can learn natural languages must be able to > gain > linguistic knowledge. > > But both systems do not have necessarily(!) the ability to *work* with > this > knowledge as it is essential for AGI. > > And for this reason natural language understanding is not AGI complete at > all. > > -Matthias > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2008 05:05 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: [agi] Language learning (was Re: Defining AGI) > > > --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> For instance, I doubt that anyone can prove that >> any system which understands natural language is >> necessarily able to solve >> the simple equation x *3 = y for a given y. > > It can be solved with statistics. Take y = 12 and count Google hits: > > string count > ------ ----- > 1x3=12 760 > 2x3=12 2030 > 3x3=12 9190 > 4x3=12 16200 > 5x3=12 1540 > 6x3=12 1010 > > More generally, people learn algebra and higher mathematics by induction, > by > generalizing from lots of examples. > > 5 * 7 = 35 -> 35 / 7 = 5 > 4 * 6 = 24 -> 24 / 6 = 4 > etc... > a * b = c -> c = b / a > > It is the same way we learn grammatical rules, for example converting > active > to passive voice and applying it to novel sentences: > > Bob kissed Alice -> Alice was kissed by Bob. > I ate dinner -> Dinner was eaten by me. > etc... > SUBJ VERB OBJ -> OBJ was VERB by SUBJ. > > In a similar manner, we can learn to solve problems using logical > deduction: > > All frogs are green. Kermit is a frog. Therefore Kermit is green. > All fish live in water. A shark is a fish. Therefore sharks live in water. > etc... > > I understand the objection to learning math and logic in a language model > instead of coding the rules directly. It is horribly inefficient. I > estimate > that a neural language model with 10^9 connections would need up to 10^18 > operations to learn simple arithmetic like 2+2=4 well enough to get it > right > 90% of the time. But I don't know of a better way to learn how to convert > natural language word problems to a formal language suitable for entering > into a calculator at the level of an average human adult. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
