Mike, I think your idealistic view of how AGI should be pursued does not work in reality. What is your approach that fits all your criteria? I'm sure that any such approach would be severely flawed as well.
Dave On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > [BTW Sloman's quote is a month old] > > I think he means what I do - the end-problems that an AGI must face. Please > name me one true AGI end-problem being dealt with by any AGI-er - apart from > the toybox problem. > > As I've repeatedly said- AGI-ers simply don't address or discuss AGI > end-problems. And they do indeed start with "solutions" - just as you are > doing - re the TSP problem and the problem of combinatorial complexity, both > of wh. have in fact nothing to do with AGI, and for neither of wh.. can you > provide a single example of a relevant AGI problem. > > One could not make up this total avoidance of the creative problem, > > And AGI-ers are not just shockingly but obscenely narrow in their > disciplinarity/ the range of their problem interests - maths, logic, > standard narrow AI computational problems, NLP, a little robotics and > that's about it - with by my rough estimate some 90% of human and > animal real world problemsolving of no interest to them. That esp. includes > their chosen key fields of language, conversation and vision - all of wh. > are much more the province of the *arts* than the sciences, when it comes to > AGI > > The fact that creative, artistic problemsolving presents a totally > different paradigm to that of programmed, preplanned problemsolving, is of > no interest to them - because they lack what educationalists would call any > kind of metacognitive (& interdisciplinary) "scaffolding" to deal with it. > > It doesn't matter that programming itself, and developing new formulae and > theorems - (all the forms IOW of creative maths, logic, programming, science > and technology) - the very problemsolving upon wh. they absolutely > depend.- also come under "artistic problemsolving". > > So there is a major need for broadening AI & AGI education both in terms of > culturally creative problemsolving and true culture-wide > multidisciplinarity. > > > > > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:05 PM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman > > Both of you are wrong. (Where did that quote come from by the way. What > year did he write or say that.) > > An inadequate understanding of the problems is exactly what has to > be expected by researchers (both professional and amateurs) when they are > facing a completely novel pursuit. That is why we have endless discussions > like these. What happened over and over again in AI research is that the > amazing advances in computer technology always seemed to suggest that > similar advances in AI must be just off the horizon. And the reality is > that there have been major advances in AI. In the 1970's a critic stated > that he wouldn't believe that AI was possible until a computer was able to > beat him in chess. Well, guess what happened and guess what conclusion he > did not derive from the experience. One of the problems with critics is > that they can be as far off as those whose optimism is absurdly unwarranted. > > If a broader multi-disciplinary effort was the obstacle to creating AGI, we > would have AGI by now. It should be clear to anyone who examines the > history of AI or the present day reach of computer programming that a > multi-discipline effort is not the key to creating effective AGI. Computers > have become pervasive in modern day life, and if it was just a matter of > getting people with different kinds of interests involved, it would have > been done by now. It is a little like saying that the key to safe deep sea > drilling is to rely on the expertise of companies that make billions and > billions of dollars and which stand to lose billions by mistakes. While > that should make sense, if you look a little more closely, you can see that > it doesn't quite work out that way in the real world. > > Jim Bromer > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> "One of the problems of AI researchers is that too often they start off >> with an inadequate >> understanding of the *problems* and believe that solutions are only a few >> years away. We need an educational system that not only teaches techniques >> and solutions, but also an understanding of problems and their difficulty — >> which can come from a broader multi-disciplinary education. That could speed >> up progress." >> A. Sloman >> >> (& who else keeps saying that?) >> *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> > *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 RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
