Yes that's what people do, but it's not what programmed computers do.
The useful formulation that emerges here is:
narrow AI (and in fact all rational) problems have *a method of solution* (to
be equated with "general" method) - and are programmable (a program is a
method of solution)
AGI (and in fact all creative) problems do NOT have *a method of solution* (in
the general sense) - rather a one.off *way of solving the problem* has to be
improvised each time.
AGI/creative problems do not in fact have a method of solution, period. There
is no (general) method of solving either the toy box or the build-a-rock-wall
problem - one essential feature which makes them AGI.
You can learn, as you indicate, from *parts* of any given AGI/creative
solution, and apply the lessons to future problems - and indeed with practice,
should improve at solving any given kind of AGI/creative problem. But you can
never apply a *whole* solution/way to further problems.
P.S. One should add that in terms of computers, we are talking here of
*complete, step-by-step* methods of solution.
From: rob levy
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:09 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
And are you happy with:
AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply to
the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at
least not in their totality)
Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to
recognize where past solutions can be generalized and where past solutions can
be varied and reused is a detail of how intelligence works that is likely to be
universal.
vs
narrow AI is about applying pre-existing *general* methods of problemsolving
(applicable to whole classes of problems)?
From: rob levy
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH
(artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I
would rephrase "solving any problem" as being able to come up with reasonable
approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do).
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
Whaddya mean by "solve the problem of how to solve problems"? Develop a
universal approach to solving any problem? Or find a method of solving a class
of problems? Or what?
From: rob levy
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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.
I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to "solve the problem
of how to solve problems" in new and changing environments. I don't think
Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the
goal of AGI as I understand it.
Rob
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
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
