‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’
‘The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why.’ — Albert Einstein We are here talking like programmers who needs to build a new system; Just divide the problem, solve it one by one, arrange the pieces and voila. We are missing something fundamentally here. That I believe has to come as a stroke of genius to someone. thanks, Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > No, Dave & I vaguely agree here that you have to start simple. To think > of movies is massively confused - rather like saying: "when we have created > an entire new electric supply system for cars, we will have solved the > problem of replacing gasoline" - first you have to focus just on inventing a > radically cheaper battery, before you consider the possibly hundreds to > thousands of associated inventions and innovations.involved in creating a > major new supply system." > > Here it would be much simpler to focus on understanding a single > photographic scene - or real, directly-viewed scene - of objects, rather > than the many thousands involved in a movie. > > In terms of language, it would be simpler to focus on understanding just > two consecutive sentences of a text or section of dialogue - or even as > I've already suggested, just the flexible combinations of two words - rather > than the hundreds of lines and many thousands of words involved in a movie > or play script. > > And even this is probably all too evolved, for humans only came to use > formal representations of the world v. recently in evolution. > > The general point - a massively important one - is that AGI-ers cannot > continue to think of AGI in terms of massively complex and evolved > intelligent systems, as you are doing. You have to start with the simplest > possible systems and gradually evolve them. Anything else is a defiance of > all the laws of technology - and will see AGI continuing to go absolutely > nowhere. > > *From:* deepakjnath <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI > > Exactly my point. So if I show a demo of an AGI system that can see two > movies and understand that the plot of the movies are same even though they > are 2 entirely different movies, you would agree that we have created a true > AGI. > > Yes there are always lot of things we need to do before we reach that > level. Its just good to know the destination so that we will know it when it > arrives. > > > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a >> text - can understand any text period - can understand language, period. And >> you want an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand >> that requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly educated, >> hugely complex set of powers . >> >> No AI can understand a photograph of a scene, period - a crowd scene, a >> house by the river. Programs are hard put to recognize any objects other >> than those in v. standard positions. And you want an AGI that can understand >> a *movie*. >> >> You don't seem to realise that we can't take the smallest AGI *step* yet >> - and you're fantasying about a superevolved AGI globetrotter. >> >> That's why Benjamin & I tried to focus on v. v. simple tests - & they're >> still way too complex & they (or comparable tests) will have to be refined >> down considerably for anyone who is interested in practical vs sci-fi >> fantasy AGI. >> >> I recommend looking at Packbots and other military robots and hospital >> robots and the like, and asking how we can free them from their human >> masters and give them the very simplest of capacities to rove and handle the >> world independently - like handling and travelling on rocks. >> >> Anyone dreaming of computers or robots that can follow "Gone with The >> Wind" or become a child (real) scientist in the foreseeable future pace Ben, >> has no realistic understanding of what is involved. >> *From:* deepakjnath <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM >> *To:* agi <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >> >> 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> > <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
