Non-reply.
Name one industry/ section of technology that began with, say, the invention of
the car, skipping all the many thousands of stages from the invention of the
wheel. What you and others are proposing is far, far more outrageous.
It won't require one but a million strokes of genius in one - a stroke of
divinity. More fantasy AGI.
From: deepakjnath
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:00 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
‘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 <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> 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
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM
To: agi
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 <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
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
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM
To: agi
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 <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
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
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM
To: agi
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 <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
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 | Modify Your Subscription
--
cheers,
Deepak
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
cheers,
Deepak
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
cheers,
Deepak
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
cheers,
Deepak
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
