Dave, You offer nothing to even attend to.
The questions completely unanswered by you are: 1. what basic visual units of analysis have you arrived at? (you say there are such things - you must have arrived at something, no?) - zero answer 2.what kind of physical/visual *pattern* informs our concept of "chair"? - zero answer. A "non-physical pattern" pace you is a non-existent entity/figment of your mind, (just as the "pattern of divine grace" is), - and yet another non-answer. You're supposed to be doing visual AGI - put up something visual in answer to the questions, or, I suggest, keep quiet. From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: agi Subject: Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason, any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong. On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, "John G. Rose" <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: Actually this is quite critical. Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the mind processes it. It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I would go for though... John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You're waffling. You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you. Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two. You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do you? Yes/no. No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and through. From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous arguments to you. You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. Dave On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And "matter" is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units" wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for "chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call "fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/"fundamental unit". From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning? The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to. 3) "Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes it general!" Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. You are only right that I haven't demonstrated it. I will address this in the next paper and continue adding details over the next few drafts. As a simple argument against your counter argument... If that were true that we could not understand the world using a limited set of rules or concepts, how is it that a human baby, with a design that is predetermined to interact with the world a certain way by its DNA, is able to deal with unforeseen things that were not preprogrammed? That’s right, the baby was born with a set of rules that robustly allows it to deal with the unforeseen. It has a limited set of rules used to learn. That is equivalent to a limited set of “concepts” (i.e. rules) that would allow a computer to deal with the unforeseen. Interesting philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers' fantasies of "take-off". You can compare it to the idea that all science can be reduced to physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But it's demonstrably not so. No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter. Oh, I forgot, that is the case :) It is a limited set of "concepts", yet it can create everything we know. You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the NEW - the unfamiliar, that wh. cannot be broken down into familiar categories, - and then find ways of dealing with it ad hoc. You don't seem to understand that even the things you think cannot be broken down, can be. Dave 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
