Creativity is the good feeling you get when you discover a clever solution to a hard problem without knowing the process you used to discover it.
I think a computer could do that. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> To: agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:08:28 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI 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 | 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
