Mike,
Alive vs. dead? As I've said before, there is no actual difference. It is
not a qualitative difference that makes something alive or dead. It is a
quantitative difference. They are both controlled by physics. I don't mean
the nice clean physics rules that we approximate things with, I mean the
real dynamics of matter. Neither moves any more regularly or irregularly
than the other. It is harder to define why something "alive" moves because
the mechanism is normally too complex. If you didn't realize, there are life
forms that don't really move, such as viruses. Viruses are controlled by the
liquid that contains them. Yet, viruses are arguably alive. Some plants or
algae don't really move either. They may just grow in some direction, which
is not quite the same as movement.
Likewise, your analogy of this to AGI fails. You think there is a
difference, but there is none. You may think a fractal is more AGI than a
simple, low noise black square, but that is not the case. It is completely
besides the point. I can easily add noise to my experiments. I can simulate
the noise of light, camera lenses, blurring, etc. But, why should I when,
even without noise, there is a clear unsolved AGI challenge. The explanatory
reasoning required to solve even zero noise problems is still required for
full complexity problems. If you can't solve it for 2 squares on a screen,
what makes you think you can solve it for real images? Your grasp of reality
regarding AGI is quite poor, in my opinion.
Your main claim is that the problems I am working on are not representative
or applicable to AGI. But, you fail to see that they really are. The
abductive reasoning required to solve these extremely simplified problems is
required for every other AGI problem as well. These problems might be
solvable using methods that don't apply to AGI. But, that's why it is
important to force oneself to solve them in such a way that it IS applicable
to AGI. It doesn't mean that you have to choose a problem that is so hard
you can't cheat. It's unnecessary to do that unless you can't control your
desire to cheat. I can. Developing in this way, such as an implementation of
explanatory based reasoning, is very much applicable to AGI.
Dave
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
> The recent Core of AGI exchange has led me IMO to a beautiful conclusion -
> to one of the most basic distinctions a real AGI system must make, and also
> a simple way of distinguishing between narrow AI and real AGI projects of
> any kind.
>
> Consider - you have
>
> a) Dave's square moving across a screen
>
> b) my square moving across a screen
>
> (it was a sort-of-Pong-player line, but let's make it a square box).
>
> How do you distinguish which is animate or inanimate, alive or "dead"? A
> very early distinction an infant must make.
>
> Remember inanimate objects move (or are moved) too, and in this case you
> can only see them in motion, - so the "self-starting" distinction is out.
>
> Well, obviously, if Dave's moves *regularly* (like a train or falling
> stone), it's probably inanimate. If mine moves *irregularly*, - if it stops
> and starts, or slows and accelerates in irregular, even if only subtly jerky
> fashion (like one operated by a human Pong player) - it's probably
> inanimate. That's what distinguishes the movement of life.
>
> Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern*
> ways, and *predictably.*
>
> Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork*
> ways, and *unbleedingpredictably* .
>
> (IOW Newton is wrong - the laws of physics do not apply to living objects
> as whole objects - that's the fundamental way we know they are living,
> because they visibly don't obey those laws - they don't normally move
> regularly like a stone falling to earth, or thrown through the sky. And
> we're v. impressed when humans like dancers or soldiers do manage by dint of
> great effort and practice to move with a high though not perfect degree of
> regularity and smoothness).
>
> And now we have such a simple way of distinguishing between narrow AI and
> real AGI projects. Look at their objects. The "really narrow AI-er" will
> always do what Dave did - pick objects that are shaped regularly, move and
> behave regularly, are patterned, and predictable. Even at as simple a level
> as plain old squares.
>
> And he'll pick closed, definable sets of objects.
>
> He'll do this instinctively, because he doesn't know any different - that's
> his intellectual, logicomathematical world - one of objects that no matter
> how complex (like fractals) are always regular in shape, movement,
> patterned, come in definable sets and are predictable.
>
> That's why Ben wants to see the world only as structured and patterned even
> though there's so much obvious mess and craziness everywhere - he's never
> known any different intellectually.
>
> That's why Michael can't bear to even contemplate a world in which things
> and people behave unpredictably. (And Ben can't bear to contemplate a
> stockmarket that is obviously unpredictable).
>
> If he were an artist his instincts would be the opposite - he'd go for the
> irregular and patchy and unpredictable twists. If he were drawing a box
> going across a screen, he would have to put some irregularity in omewhere -
> put in some fits and starts and stops - there's always an irregular twist in
> the picture or the tale. An artist has to put some surprise and life into
> what he does -
>
> If he were drawing or photographing a picture of any real world scene, it
> would be full of irregularity - irregular objects moving in irregular ways
> in irregular groupings. (One reason why so many AGI-ers can't bear to deal
> with visual images of any detail. ).
>
> Even at one extreme if he were an abstract artist using regular objects
> like Albers, he'd still put them together in somewhat irregular ways, or
> irregular combinations of colours.
>
> AGI is about dealing first and foremost with the real world, navigating
> real world scenes - streets, fields, rooms - manipulating real world
> objects, visually classifying real world objects, talking to real world
> people, dealing with real world texts, pictures, photographs and movies)
>
> Not the artificial worlds of factories, and labs, and processing plants,
> and the artificial abstract objects and spaces of logic and maths.
>
> The real world always contains a great deal of irregularly shaped objects,
> (like rocks and faces), moving and talking and signifying irregularly, in
> open, undefinable groups/sets, in patchworks - and overall behaving
> unpredictably (and surprisingly).
>
> That's what real AGI projects will have to deal with.
>
> ("objects" here can be taken universally like "things" - to denote not
> just physical objects but sign objects too like numbers, and words and
> pictures, and ideas).
>
> P.S. Summary: The litmus, "OBJECT TRUTH TEST" of your AGI project - are the
> objects regular/irregular in
>
> 1) Form - Shape ( brick vs rock)
> 2) Form - Structure ( pattern vs patchwork)
> 3) Movement/ Behaviour (incl. Signification)
> 4) Groups/Sets - Closed Defined Sets vs Open Undefinable (or only partly
> definable) Sets
> 5) Predictable/Unpredictable
>
> Or to put it another way, could this be part of the real, imperfect world
> rather than an artificial, perfect world?
>
> I've only come across one project that even begins to pass the test.
>
> (And no, Dave, problems about regular, predictable objects will never
> "scale up" to problems about irregular, unpredictable ones. Whatever you do
> has to be designed for the latter, from the bottom up).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
