Dave, I agree completely on your point of having a general unifying system that will solve a simple problem. This system when scaled should be able to solve all the other problems that you were talking about.
How will we recognize the solution when we get it. I believe that it will be elegant and simple and would address many problems rather than just one. I disagree on breaking the problem and looking at it step by step. This is how we solve any problem logically. Millions of years of evolution has gone into perfecting our minds and optimizing the brain. So following the normal engineering way of breaking a big problem in to small manageable problems and working on it may take a long time. Because when we optimize locally we may find that globally the system is not optimized and vice versa. My approach is of looking at the whole problem and finding a simple solution that will be answer to many problems. We should use our superior processing power of subconscious to find a solution. The same way artists make their creations. I am no way discounting the enormity of the challenge. But different approaches are valid and it will be too arrogant to say that my approach is superior to another one. So the more number of radically different approach the chances of finding a solution increases. Cheers, Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:43 AM, David Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Deepak, > > I think you would be much better off focusing on something more practical. > Understanding a movie and all the myriad things going on, their > significance, etc... that's AI complete. There is no way you are going to > get there without a hell of a lot of steps in between. So, you might as well > focus on the steps required to get there. Such a test is so complicated, > that you cannot even start, except to look for simpler test cases and goals. > > > My approach to testing agi has been to define what AGI must accomplish. > Which I have in the following steps: > 1) understand the environment > 2) understand ones own actions and how they affect the environment > 3) understand language > 4) learn goals from other people through language > 5) perform planning and attempt to achieve goals > 6) other miscellaneous requirements. > > Each step must be accomplished in a general way. By general, I mean that it > can solve many many problems with the same programming. > > Each step must be done in order because each step requires previous steps > to proceed. So, to me, the most important place to start is general > environment understanding. > > Then, now that you know where to start, you pick more specific goals and > test cases. How do you develop and test general environment understanding? > What is a simple test case you can develop on? What are the fundamental > problems and principles involved? What is required to solve these problems? > > Those are the sorts of tests you should be considering. But that only comes > after you decide what AGI requires and steps required. Maybe you'll agree > with me, maybe you won't. So, that's how I would recommend going about it. > > Dave > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, deepakjnath <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at >> doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. >> >> One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies >> show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a >> totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and >> settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the >> story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for AGI >> structure. >> >> The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub >> plots is an important requirement of AGI. >> >> Deepak >> >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Please explain/expound freely why you're not "convinced" - and indicate >>> what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow. >>> >>> Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test >>> OR a def. of AGI. >>> >>> One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - >>> almost by definition, there is no such thing as >>> >>> a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test - >>> having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be >>> presented with a new "adjacent" test for wh. it has had no preparation, >>> like say building with cushions or sand bags or packing with fruit. (and >>> neither rock/toy test state that clearly) >>> >>> b) one kind of test - this is an AGI, so it should be clear that if it >>> can pass one kind of test, it has the basic potential to go on to many >>> different kinds, and it doesn't really matter which kind of test you start >>> with - that is partly the function of having a good.definition of AGI . >>> >>> >>> *From:* deepakjnath <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM >>> *To:* agi <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >>> >>> So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really >>> knowing it right? >>> >>> Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of >>> convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just >>> an advanced AI system. >>> >>> I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many >>> people will still be convinced I am sure. >>> >>> I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem >>> which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench >>> how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no >>> map. >>> >>> Deepak >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of >>>> tests of AGI. >>>> >>>> Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. >>>> (See archives). >>>> >>>> I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall >>>> from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). >>>> >>>> However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain >>>> what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there >>>> are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. >>>> >>>> The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an >>>> embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No >>>> explanation offered. >>>> >>>> The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's "solves a variety >>>> of complex problems in a variety of complex environments". Nope, so does a >>>> multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - >>>> something to do with "insufficient knowledge and resources..." >>>> "Insufficient" is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to >>>> mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't >>>> distinguish AGI from narrow AI. >>>> >>>> The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) >>>> is that: >>>> >>>> ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent >>>> learning** >>>> >>>> i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with >>>> minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and >>>> animals >>>> are) - and thus acquiring a "general", "all-round" range of intelligence.. >>>> >>>> This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and >>>> mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being >>>> specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from >>>> narrow >>>> AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. >>>> Ben's >>>> AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be >>>> able >>>> to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - >>>> they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But >>>> I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. >>>> >>>> However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the >>>> distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. >>>> >>>> It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which >>>> distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. >>>> >>>> [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments & continue another time]. >>>> >>>> P.S. Deepakjnath, >>>> >>>> It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not >>>> * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical >>>> in >>>> this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US >>>> banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of >>>> their assets. >>>> *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> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> cheers, >>> Deepak >>> *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> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> cheers, >> Deepak >> *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> > -- cheers, Deepak ------------------------------------------- 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
