Re: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
Mike, On 5/28/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve: I have been advocating fixing the brain shorts that lead to problems, rather than jerking the entire world around to make brain shorted people happy. Which brain shorts? IMO the brain's capacity for shorts in one situation is almost always a capacity for short-cuts in another - and dangerous to tamper with. It appears that the principle of reverse reductio ad absurdum is SO non-obvious that it has escaped human notice for about a million years. In its absence, we have countless needless problems, and have evolved into a specie who would rather fight than solve problems with advanced reasoning methods (that we haven't had). Yes, I AM including AGIers in this list, and excepting only those with a working understanding of reverse reductio ad absurdum. By my count, that means that all but maybe a few dozen people on the face of the earth are SERIOUSLY brain shorted, as will be any AGIs that they construct. This discussion reminds me of the floating-point that IBM adopted on their mainframe computers, complete with normalization that shifted 4 bits at a time. As one CS person noted, it made roundoff errors faster than any other computer on the face of the earth. Hence, let's first get things working right, and then lets work on the short cuts. Steve:Let's instead 1. make something USEFUL, like knowledge management programs that do things that people (and future AGIs) are fundamentally poor at doing Well, in principle, a general expert system that can be a problem-solving aid in many domains would be a fine thing. But - if you'll forgive the ignorance of this question - my impression was that expert systems were a big fad that has largely failed??? If you have a link to some survey here, I'd appreciate it. My own Dr. Eliza incorporates the missing pieces that doomed prior efforts. Not the least of these is coding regular expressions for what people say who both have a particular problems, and who are ignorant of its workings. Surprisingly, this is not nearly as difficult as it sounds. Steve, the capacity for general thinking/intelligence HAS to be - and is being - explored. William may be right that all the main AGI-ers are like him avoiding the challenge of general problemsolving, and hoping that the answer will emerge later on in the development of their systems. But roboticists are setting themselves general problems nbw - in the shape if nothing else of the ICRA challenge, as I've pointed out before. This has been an ongoing effort for the last ~40 years, so while we all remain hopeful, I am not expecting anything spectacular anytime soon. Do you have some reason to expect a breakthrough? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
2008/5/27 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Will:And you are part of the problem insisting that an AGI should be tested by its ability to learn on its own and not get instruction/help from other agents be they human or other artificial intelligences. I insist[ed] that an AGI should be tested on its ability to solve some *problems* on its own - cross-domain problems - just as we do. Of course, it should learn from others, and get help on other problems, as we do too. But you don't test for that, and as the loebner prize shows you only tend to get what you test for. But if it can't solve many general problems on its own - which seemed OK by you (after setting up your initially appealing submersible problem - solutio interrupta!) - then it's only a narrow AI. I am happy for the baby machine (which is what we will be dealing with to start with) not to be able to solve general problems on its own. Later on I would be disappointed. Will Pearson --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
Steve: I have been advocating fixing the brain shorts that lead to problems, rather than jerking the entire world around to make brain shorted people happy. Which brain shorts? IMO the brain's capacity for shorts in one situation is almost always a capacity for short-cuts in another - and dangerous to tamper with. Steve:Let's instead 1. make something USEFUL, like knowledge management programs that do things that people (and future AGIs) are fundamentally poor at doing Well, in principle, a general expert system that can be a problem-solving aid in many domains would be a fine thing. But - if you'll forgive the ignorance of this question - my impression was that expert systems were a big fad that has largely failed??? If you have a link to some survey here, I'd appreciate it. Steve, the capacity for general thinking/intelligence HAS to be - and is being - explored. William may be right that all the main AGI-ers are like him avoiding the challenge of general problemsolving, and hoping that the answer will emerge later on in the development of their systems. But roboticists are setting themselves general problems nbw - in the shape if nothing else of the ICRA challenge, as I've pointed out before. I --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
Steve:Presuming that you do NOT want to store all of history and repeatedly analyze all of it as your future AGI operates, you must accept MULTIPLE potentially-useful paradigms, adding new ones and trashing old ones as more information comes in. Our own very personal ideas of learning and thinking do NOT typically allow for the maintenance of multiple simultaneous paradigms, cross-paradigm translation, etc. Steve, Some odd thoughts in response to an odd but interesting post :). 1). A true AGI - incl. every living creature - has to be a SELF-EDUCATOR, s.o. who doesn't just learn, but learns how to learn, and that means 2) A true AGI also has to be a CONSUMER in every sphere of their activities - choosing from multiple available paradigms; and to be a mix of different paradigms in each area - which is healthy and inevitable. 3) Every true intelligence is, and can only be, one individual in a SOCIETY OF INTELLIGENCES.. - a consumer in an extensive MARKET of multiple ideas and paradigms.; (wouldn't anything less be un-American?) Correct me, but all the ideas of AGI's that I've seen are about INDIVIDUAL isolated minds - single superpowerful computers taking over the world, as per the sci-fi movies, that seem to have shaped everyone's thinking. Actually, that's an absurdity. The whole story of evolution tells us that the problems of living in this world for any species of creature/intelligence at any level can only be solved by a SOCIETY of individuals. This whole dimension seems to be entirely missing from AGI. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
2008/5/27 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Actually, that's an absurdity. The whole story of evolution tells us that the problems of living in this world for any species of creature/intelligence at any level can only be solved by a SOCIETY of individuals. This whole dimension seems to be entirely missing from AGI. And you are part of the problem insisting that an AGI should be tested by its ability to learn on its own and not get instruction/help from other agents be they human or other artificial intelligences. The social aspect of mimicry has been picked up Ben Goertzel at least in the initial stages of development of his AGI, he may think it will evolve beyond that eventually. I don't think it will, as every mind is capable of getting stuck in a rut (they are attractor states), getting out of that rut is easier with other intelligences to show the way out (themselves getting stuck in different ruts). Societies can get stuck in their own ruts but generally have bigger spaces to explore, so might find their way out in a long time. Will --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
Will:And you are part of the problem insisting that an AGI should be tested by its ability to learn on its own and not get instruction/help from other agents be they human or other artificial intelligences. I insist[ed] that an AGI should be tested on its ability to solve some *problems* on its own - cross-domain problems - just as we do. Of course, it should learn from others, and get help on other problems, as we do too. But if it can't solve many general problems on its own - which seemed OK by you (after setting up your initially appealing submersible problem - solutio interrupta!) - then it's only a narrow AI. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
Mike, On 5/27/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve:Presuming that you do NOT want to store all of history and repeatedly analyze all of it as your future AGI operates, you must accept MULTIPLE potentially-useful paradigms, adding new ones and trashing old ones as more information comes in. Our own very personal ideas of learning and thinking do NOT typically allow for the maintenance of multiple simultaneous paradigms, cross-paradigm translation, etc. Steve, Some odd thoughts in response to an odd but interesting post :). 1). A true AGI - incl. every living creature - has to be a SELF-EDUCATOR, s.o. who doesn't just learn, but learns how to learn, and that means 2) A true AGI also has to be a CONSUMER in every sphere of their activities - choosing from multiple available paradigms; and to be a mix of different paradigms in each area - which is healthy and inevitable. 3) Every true intelligence is, and can only be, one individual in a SOCIETY OF INTELLIGENCES.. - a consumer in an extensive MARKET of multiple ideas and paradigms.; (wouldn't anything less be un-American?) Correct me, but all the ideas of AGI's that I've seen are about INDIVIDUAL isolated minds - single superpowerful computers taking over the world, as per the sci-fi movies, that seem to have shaped everyone's thinking. As the one lone holdout here, I have been advocating fixing the brain shorts that lead to problems, rather than jerking the entire world around to make brain shorted people happy. This is what professional negotiators call a win win solution. Every professional negotiator KNOWS that there is ALWAYS a win win solution. All reverse reduction ad absurdum does is provide the PROOF of this, along with some guidance to finding the solution, so there is no longer any excuse for failing to come up with a win win solution. Actually, that's an absurdity. The whole story of evolution tells us that the problems of living in this world for any species of creature/intelligence at any level can only be solved by a SOCIETY of individuals. This sure hasn't worked for the last million years or so. This whole dimension seems to be entirely missing from AGI. That sure isn't the only thing that is missing from AGI. We already have BILLIONS of human-scale AGIs running around and are turning out more at the rate of one per second. Why waste an hour trying to make still more since we have quite enough, unless of course you are in the company of a beautiful young woman? Let's instead either 1. make something USEFUL, like knowledge management programs that do things that people (and future AGIs) are fundamentally poor at doing, and/or 2. make something VALUABLE, like life-forever-machines, that may not be very useful, but at least they might be valuable to rich people who want to live forever. It is sure nice that this is a VIRTUAL forum, for if we were all in one room together, my posting above would probably get me thrashed by the *true* AGI believers here. Does anyone here want to throw a virtual stone? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Re: Merging - or: Multiplicity
Steve Richfield: It is sure nice that this is a VIRTUAL forum, for if we were all in one room together, my posting above would probably get me thrashed by the true AGI believers here. Does anyone here want to throw a virtual stone? Sure. *plonk* --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
