I don't agree at all. The ability to cope with narrow, closed, deterministic environments in an isolated way is VERY DIFFERENT from the ability to cope with a more open-ended, indeterminate environment like the one humans live in
Not everything that is a necessary capability of a completed human-level, roughly human-like AGI, is a sensible "first step" toward a human-level, roughly human-like AGI I'm not saying that making a system that's able to learn chess is a **bad** idea. I am saying that I suspect it's not the best path to AGI. I'm slightly more attracted to the General Gameplaying (GGP) Competition than to a narrow-focus on chess http://games.stanford.edu/ but not so much to that either... I look at it this way. I have a basic understanding of how a roughly human-like AGI mind (with virtual embodiment and language facility) might progress from the preschool level up through the university level, by analogy to human cognitive development. On the other hand, I do not have a very good understanding at all of how a radically non-human-like AGI mind would progress from "learn to play chess" level to the university level, or to the level of GGP, or robust mathematical theorem-proving, etc. If you have a good understanding of this I'd love to hear it. -- Ben G On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that chess is far from sufficient for AGI. But I have mentioned > this already at the beginning of this thread. > > The important role of chess for AGI could be to rule out bad AGI approaches > as fast as possible. > > > > Before you go to more complex domains you should consider chess as a first > important milestone which helps you not to go a long way towards a dead end > with the wrong approach for AGI. > > > > If chess is so easy because it is completely described, complete > information about state available, fully deterministic etc. then the more > important it is that your AGI can learn such an easy task before you try > something more difficult. > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > I would agree with this and also with your thesis that a true AGI must be > able to learn chess in this way. However, although this ability is > necessary it is far from sufficient for AGI, and thinking about AGI from > this very narrow perspective seems to me to be a poor way to attack the > problem. Very few of the things an AGI must be able to do (as the Heinlein > quote points out) are similar to chess -- completely described, complete > information about state available, fully deterministic. If you aim at chess > you might hit chess but there's no reason that you will achieve anything > higher. > > Still, using chess as a test case may not be useless; a system that > produces a convincing story about concept formation in the chess domain > (that is, that invents concepts for pinning, pawn chains, speculative > sacrifices in exchange for piece mobility, zugzwang, and so on without an > identifiable bias toward these things) would at least be interesting to > those interested in AGI. > > Mathematics, though, is interesting in other ways. I don't believe that > much of mathematics involves the logical transformations performed in proof > steps. A system that invents new fields of mathematics, new terms, new > mathematical "ideas" -- that is truly interesting. Inference control is > boring, but inventing mathematical induction, complex numbers, or ring > theory -- THAT is AGI-worthy. > > ------------------------------ > > *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 > > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > ------------------------------ > *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 > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- 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
