It's a hard problem, and the answer is to "cheat as much as possible, but not any more so."
We'll just have to feel this out via experiment... My intuition is that current virtual worlds and game worlds are too crude, but current robot simulators are not. I.e., I doubt one needs serious fluid dynamics in one's simulation ... I doubt one needs bodies with detailed internal musculature ... but I think one does need basic Newtonian physics and the ability to use tools, break things in half (but not necessarily realistic cracking behavior), balance things and carry them and stack them and push them together Lego-like and so forth... I could probably frame a detailed argument as to WHY I think the line should be drawn right there, in terms of the cognitive tasks supported by this level of physics simulation. That would be an interesting followup paper, I guess. The crux of the argument would be that all the basic tasks required in an AGI Preschool could be sensibly formulated using only this level of physics simulation, in a way that doesn't involve cheating... (but the proper contextualization formalization of "doesn't involve cheating" would require some thought) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Derek Zahn <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ben. > > > OTOH, if one wants to go the virtual-robotics direction (as is my > intuition), > > then it is possible to bypass many of the lower-level > perception/actuation > > issues and focus on preschool-level learning, reasoning and conceptual > creation. > > And yet, in your paper (which I enjoyed), you emphasize the importance of > not providing > a simplistic environment (with the screwdriver example). Without facing > the low-level > sensory world (either through robotics or through very advanced simulations > feeding > senses essentially equivalent to those of humans), I wonder if a targeted > "human-like" > AGI will be able to acquire the necessary concepts that children absorb and > use as much o > f the metaphorical basis for their thought -- slippery, soft, hot, hard, > rough, sharp, and on > and on. > > I assume you have some sort of middle ground in mind... what's your > thinking about > how much you can "cheat" in this way (beyond that of what is conveniently > doable > I mean)? > > Thanks! > > > ------------------------------ > *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] "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx ------------------------------------------- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
