Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Dave, I agree completely on your point of having a general unifying system that will solve a simple problem. This system when scaled should be able to solve all the other problems that you were talking about. How will we recognize the solution when we get it. I believe that it will be elegant and simple and would address many problems rather than just one. I disagree on breaking the problem and looking at it step by step. This is how we solve any problem logically. Millions of years of evolution has gone into perfecting our minds and optimizing the brain. So following the normal engineering way of breaking a big problem in to small manageable problems and working on it may take a long time. Because when we optimize locally we may find that globally the system is not optimized and vice versa. My approach is of looking at the whole problem and finding a simple solution that will be answer to many problems. We should use our superior processing power of subconscious to find a solution. The same way artists make their creations. I am no way discounting the enormity of the challenge. But different approaches are valid and it will be too arrogant to say that my approach is superior to another one. So the more number of radically different approach the chances of finding a solution increases. Cheers, Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:43 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Deepak, I think you would be much better off focusing on something more practical. Understanding a movie and all the myriad things going on, their significance, etc... that's AI complete. There is no way you are going to get there without a hell of a lot of steps in between. So, you might as well focus on the steps required to get there. Such a test is so complicated, that you cannot even start, except to look for simpler test cases and goals. My approach to testing agi has been to define what AGI must accomplish. Which I have in the following steps: 1) understand the environment 2) understand ones own actions and how they affect the environment 3) understand language 4) learn goals from other people through language 5) perform planning and attempt to achieve goals 6) other miscellaneous requirements. Each step must be accomplished in a general way. By general, I mean that it can solve many many problems with the same programming. Each step must be done in order because each step requires previous steps to proceed. So, to me, the most important place to start is general environment understanding. Then, now that you know where to start, you pick more specific goals and test cases. How do you develop and test general environment understanding? What is a simple test case you can develop on? What are the fundamental problems and principles involved? What is required to solve these problems? Those are the sorts of tests you should be considering. But that only comes after you decide what AGI requires and steps required. Maybe you'll agree with me, maybe you won't. So, that's how I would recommend going about it. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.comwrote: 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.ukwrote: 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 deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel?. That is my question my 2 pennyworth. Other people can elaborate. If that question can be answered you can have an automated advisor in BQ. Suppose I want to know about the characteristics of concrete. Of course one thing you could do is go to BQ and ask them what they would be looking for in an avatar. - Ian Parker On 19 July 2010 02:43, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: Try this one ... http://www.bentham.org/open/toaij/openaccess2.htm If the test subject can be a scientist, it is an AGI. cheers colin Steve Richfield wrote: Deepak, An intermediate step is the reverse Turing test (RTT), wherein people or teams of people attempt to emulate an AGI. I suspect that from such a competition would come a better idea as to what to expect from an AGI. I have attempted in the past to drum up interest in a RTT, but so far, no one seems interested. Do you want to play a game?! Steve On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:15 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.comwrote: I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test that can really convince majority of today's AGIers that a System is true AGI? Is there some real prize like the XPrize for AGI or AI in general? thanks, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Abram, I feel a responsibility to make an effort to explain myself when someone doesn't understand what I am saying, but once I have gone over the material sufficiently, if the person is still arguing with me about it I will just say that I have already explained myself in the previous messages. For example if you can point to some authoritative source outside the Solomonoff-Kolmogrov crowd that agrees that full program space, as it pertains to definitions like, all possible programs, or my example of, all possible mathematical functions, represents an comprehensible concept that is open to mathematical analysis then tell me about it. We use concepts like the set containing sets that are not members of themselves as a philosophical tool that can lead to the discovery of errors in our assumptions, and in this way such contradictions are of tremendous value. The ability to use critical skills to find flaws in one's own presumptions are critical in comprehension, and if that kind of critical thinking has been turned off for some reason, then the consequences will be predictable. I think compression is a useful field but the idea of universal induction aka Solomonoff Induction is garbage science. It was a good effort on Solomonoff's part, but it didn't work and it is time to move on, as the majority of theorists have. Jim Bromer On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, I'm still not sure what your point even is, which is probably why my responses seem so strange to you. It still seems to me as if you are jumping back and forth between different positions, like I said at the start of this discussion. You didn't answer why you think program space does not represent a comprehensible concept. (I will drop the full if it helps...) My only conclusion can be that you are (at least implicitly) rejecting some classical mathematical principles and using your own very different notion of which proofs are valid, which concepts are well-defined, et cetera. (Or perhaps you just don't have a background in the formal theory of computation?) Also, not sure what difference you mean to say I'm papering over. Perhaps it *is* best that we drop it, since neither one of us is getting through to the other; but, I am genuinely trying to figure out what you are saying... --Abram On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Abram, I was going to drop the discussion, but then I thought I figured out why you kept trying to paper over the difference. Of course, our personal disagreement is trivial; it isn't that important. But the problem with Solomonoff Induction is that not only is the output hopelessly tangled and seriously infinite, but the input is as well. The definition of all possible programs, like the definition of all possible mathematical functions, is not a proper mathematical problem that can be comprehended in an analytical way. I think that is the part you haven't totally figured out yet (if you will excuse the pun). Total program space, does not represent a comprehensible computational concept. When you try find a way to work out feasible computable examples it is not enough to limit the output string space, you HAVE to limit the program space in the same way. That second limitation makes the entire concept of total program space, much too weak for our purposes. You seem to know this at an intuitive operational level, but it seems to me that you haven't truly grasped the implications. I say that Solomonoff Induction is computational but I have to use a trick to justify that remark. I think the trick may be acceptable, but I am not sure. But the possibility that the concept of all possible programs, might be computational doesn't mean that that it is a sound mathematical concept. This underlies the reason that I intuitively came to the conclusion that Solomonoff Induction was transfinite. However, I wasn't able to prove it because the hypothetical concept of all possible program space, is so pretentious that it does not lend itself to mathematical analysis. I just wanted to point this detail out because your implied view that you agreed with me but total program space was mathematically well-defined did not make any sense. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
Ian: Suppose I want to know about the characteristics of concrete You seem to think you can know about an object without ever having seen it or physically interacted with it? As long as you have a set of words for the world, you need never have actually experienced or been in the world? You can fight Israel and lay concrete merely by manipulating words? From: Ian Parker Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:39 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI? What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel?. That is my question my 2 pennyworth. Other people can elaborate. If that question can be answered you can have an automated advisor in BQ. Suppose I want to know about the characteristics of concrete. Of course one thing you could do is go to BQ and ask them what they would be looking for in an avatar. - Ian Parker On 19 July 2010 02:43, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: Try this one ... http://www.bentham.org/open/toaij/openaccess2.htm If the test subject can be a scientist, it is an AGI. cheers colin Steve Richfield wrote: Deepak, An intermediate step is the reverse Turing test (RTT), wherein people or teams of people attempt to emulate an AGI. I suspect that from such a competition would come a better idea as to what to expect from an AGI. I have attempted in the past to drum up interest in a RTT, but so far, no one seems interested. Do you want to play a game?! Steve On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:15 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test that can really convince majority of today's AGIers that a System is true AGI? Is there some real prize like the XPrize for AGI or AI in general? thanks, Deepak 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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.ukwrote: 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 deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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.ukwrote: 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 deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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.
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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
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: 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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: 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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.ukwrote: 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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Fogel originally used the phrase to argue that evolutionary computation makes sense as a cognitive architecture for a general-purpose AI problem solver. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote: 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.ukwrote: 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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
OK. so you're saying: AGI is solving problems where you have to *devise* a method of solution/solving the problem and is that devising in effect or actually/formally? - ** vs narrow AI wh. is where you *apply* a pre-existing method of solution/solving the problem ? 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) 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: 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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.ukwrote: 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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I checked the term program space and found a few authors who used it, but it seems to be an ad-hoc definition that is not widely used. It seems to be an amalgamation of term sample space with the the set of all programs or something like that. Of course, the simple comprehension of the idea of, all possible programs is different than the pretense that all possible programs could be comprehended through some kind of strategy of evaluation of all those programs. It would be like confusing a domain from mathematics with a value or an possibly evaluable variable (that can be assigned a value from the domain). These type distinctions are necessary for logical thinking about these things. The same kind of reasoning goes for Russell's Paradox. While I can, (with some thought) comprehend the definition and understand the paradox, I cannot comprehend the set itself, that is, I cannot comprehend the evaluation of the set. Such a thing doesn't make any sense. It is odd that the set of all evaluable functions (or all programs) is an inherent paradox when you try to think of it in the terms of an evaluable function (as if writing a program that produces all possible programs was feasible). The oddness is due to the fact that there is nothing that obviously leads to a paradox, and it is not easy to prove it is a paradox (because it lacks the required definition). The only reason we can give for the seeming paradox is that it is wrong to confuse the domain of a mathematical definition with a value or values from the domain. While this barrier can be transcended in some very special cases, it very obviously cannot be ignored for the general case. Jim Bromer --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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: 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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 ofproblemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot bere-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 ofproblems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests ofAGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This isAGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintendedconsequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being ableto come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just ashumans 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 validdefinitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why thesetests 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the computer's or any agent's thinking about a problem. Programs/Turing machines are only one way of structuring thinking/problemsolving - by, among other things, giving the computer a method/process of solution. There is an alternative way of structuring a computer's thinking, which incl., among other things, not giving it a method/ process of solution, but making it rather than a human programmer do the real problemsolving. More of that another time. From: Matt Mahoney Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:38 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI 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 | 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I made a remark about confusing a domain with the values that was wrong. What I should have said is that you cannot just treat a domain of functions or of programs as if they were a domain of numbers or values and expect them to act in ways that are familiar from a study of numbers. Of course you can use any of the members of a domain of numbers or numerical variables in evaluation methods, but when you try that with a domain of functions, programs or algorithms, you have to expect that you may get some odd results. I believe that since programs can be represented by strings, the Solomonoff Induction of programs can be seen to be computable because you can just iterate through every possible program string. I believe that the same thing could be said of all possible Universal Turing Machines. If these two statements are true, then I believe that the program is both computable and will create the situation of Cantor's diagonal argument. I believe that the construction of the infinite sequences of Cantor's argument can be constructed through an infinite computable program, and since the program can also act on the infinite memory that Solomonoff Induction needs, Cantor's diagonal sequence can also be constructed by a program. Since Solomonoff Induction is defined so that it will use every possible program, this situation cannot be avoided. Thus, Solomonoff Induction would be both computable and it would produce uncountable infinities of strings. When combined with the problem of ordering the resulting strings in order to show how the functions might approach stable limits for each probability, since you cannot a priori determine the ordering of the programs that you would need for the computation of these stable limiting probabilities you would be confronted with the higher order infinity of all possible combinations of orderings of the trans infinite strings that the program would hypothetically produce. Therefore, Solomonoff Induction is either incomputable or else it cannot be proven to be capable of avoiding the production of trans infinite strings whose ordering is so confused that they would be totally useless for any kind of prediction of a string based on a given prefix, as is claimed. The system is not any kind of ideal but rather *a confused theoretical notion. * I might be wrong. Or I might be right. Jim Bromer --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
