> > >>> > 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 > > <<< > > This is surely true. But let's say someone wants to develop a car. Doesn't > it makes sense first to develop and test its essential parts before I put > everything together and go to the road? >
Yes, and we are of course doing that > I think chess is a good testing area > I strongly disagree... > > If your system sees no patterns in chess, then I would doubt whether it is > really suitable for AGI. > > > I strongly suspect that OpenCog ... once more of the NM tools are ported to it (e.g. the completion of the backward chainer port) ... could learn to play chess legally but not very well. To get it to play really well would probably require either a lot of specialized hacking with inference control, or a broader AGI approach going beyond the chess domain... or a lot more advancement of the learning mechanisms (along lines already specified in the OCP design).... To me, teaching OpenCog to play chess poorly would prove almost nothing. And getting it to play chess well via tailoring the inference control mechanisms would prove little that's relevant to AGI, though it would be cool. > Ok. I do not say that your approach is wrong. In fact I think it is very > interesting and ambitious. But as you think that my approach is not the best > one I think that your approach is not the best one. Probably, the > discussion could be endless. And probably you already have invested too much > effort in your approach that you really can consider to change it. I hope > you are right because I would be very happy to see the first AGI soon, > regardless who will build it and regardless which concept is used. > I would change my approach if I thought there were a better one. But you haven't convinced me, just as I haven't convinced you ;-) Anyway, to take your approach I would not need to change my AGI design at all: OCP could be pursued in the domain of learning to play chess. I just don't think that's the best choice. BTW, if I were going to pursue a board game I'd choose Go not chess ... at least it hasn't been solved by narrow-AI very well yet ... so a really good OpenCog-based Go program would have more sex appeal ... there has not been a Deep Blue of Go My son is a good Go player so maybe I'll talk him into trying this one day ;-) ben g ------------------------------------------- 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
