On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Alexey Potapov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> And forget the 10 thousand number. No human can do that, not from memory. >> > > I guess you are wrong. There are people who can recall any of 10000 go > games. > That's total bullshit. Its the Japanese equivalent of chem trails and flat earth and aromatherapy: mumbo-jumbo to impress naive idiots. No human can remember 10000 of anything whatsoever. The human brain is just simply not that big. > Why shouldn't people be able to solve simpler tasks, at least if they are > professionally dedicated to them? Also, as well studied by Vygotsky and > others, people from primitive societies have much better recall from > episodic memory. > But, ok, let's assume you are right. My claim: no human can solve zebra > puzzle in their mind, but the backward chainer with PM can. So, let's not > use them in AGI. Is this right conclusion from your arguments? > I had to google the "zebra puzzle". Its the same as the "Einstein puzzle"? Middle house smokes camels and drinks whisky and the Dutchman keeps a dog? Its a goofy kids puzzle. I solved that puzzle like when I was 8 or 10 years old. It's not hard. I used an ordinary mental prosthesis: pencil & paper, as it was called back in the day. I guess maybe its too hard to do it "in your head" (without pencil & paper) because human short-term memory is 7 +/- 2 and that puzzle requires maybe twice as much to remember. (???) But that's why humans invented writing, yes? To get around limitations of the human brain. I don't understand what human limitations have to do with AGI. What I was trying to state is that the pattern matcher (and the rule engine, and the chainers, and the "openpsi" rule selection system) are all just building blocks meant to be used whenever they are useful. Figuring out how to improve these building blocks, how to add features, how to make them faster -- that's "easy". I was also trying to state that getting a computer to learn knowledge from the external world, and performing abstract reasoning with that knowledge: that is "hard". Again: improving the pattern matcher to run in O(N) instead of O(N^2) == easy. Learning+reasoning == hard. I'm mostly interested in the hard problem, not the easy one. --linas -- cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA36nSonc%3DM7P6akofDuaRORL_iGhLXjYWUsax%3D6HTvsqgA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
