Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't it be better to provide a super-wiki that could be selected to ONLY display the professional content if that was what was wanted? How about a cookie on everyone's computer that could select out porn, unreferenced, challenged, unprofessional, unChristian, etc., etc., with separate flags for each of these? This way, EVERYONE could get what they want. There's a project in progress to do that, and last I checked, they were still looking for people to pitch in and lend a hand: http://canonizer.com/ --- 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] Understanding a sick puppy
Mike, On 5/15/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve/MT: My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. Steve, I can loosely appreciate the problems of persuasion, but, given your enthusiasm for this field, I would urge you to keep trying - there has to be a way round them. I agree. Please see my new posting on AGI and Wiki. Surely, the angle has to be something like a super-medical-wiki-but-with-professional-standards Incompetents have successively redefined professional standards to be completely dysfunctional. Doing things the same old way, most of which has never been studied, IS professional. However, acting on new theories with supporting evidence but lacking extensive double-blind studies can lose your medical license, home, and comfortable life. See Stephen Barret's http://www.quackwatch.com. I once attended a lecture on some new research, when the lecturer announced that he was FINALLY featured on Quackwatch. He received a round of applause from the audience! If I were higher profile, I might well achieve the same fame. Note that many theories are IMPOSSIBLE to study using double-blind methods that were designed only to study drugs. I see the (former) field of phrenology, diagnosing illnesses based on the bumps on people's heads, as being a good example of the same phenomenon. You could get professional credentials in this field once you could prove that you knew which bumps were supposedly associated with which illnesses. Of course, there ARE a number of common conditions (like magnesium deficiency, the most common deficiency there is) that DO cause differences in bumps and skull shape. has to be of universal use to MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS as well as the layperson, (and the layman will still need professional advice on the info. provided). The immediate marketing angle that occurs to me is: this will keep you, the medico, up-to-date This is IMPOSSIBLE because there just aren't enough hours in a day to read everything that is pertinent. and ensure you don't give out-of-date unprofessional advice As explained above, this is an oxymoron, because professional, as defined by people who are themselves out-of-date, is an out-of-date definition. (and will give your advice an imprimatur in that you will always be able to say you checked the most reliable source). If you wait for proof, then you are practicing 20-30 years behind the times, which means that you will be unnecessarily losing a LOT of patients. Of course, going with the latest information will also lose some patients, but not nearly as many. THERE IS NO SAFE ANSWER. [No doubt there may be many other angles]. My guess is an awful lot of medicos WON'T be up-to-date. Bingo! For example, last year there was a discovery re CFS how it's down to a stomach virus - which looks right, and fits the symptoms. I have looked at this area. There are almost as many different theories behind CFS as there are books about CFS, and there are a LOT of books. I believe that a large number of these theories are CORRECT for some sub-population of CFS sufferers. The point here is that almost any metabolic malfunction is going to, by the nature of metabolism, reduce the available energy output, which will cause CFS-like symptoms. We are complex mechanisms and there is a LOT that can go wrong. Further, these malfunctions usually cause cascading failures as alternate systems try to do the job, so that (for example) substantially all CFS sufferers have adrenal fatigue, though that seems to rarely be a primary failure (Addison's disease). Sure, a stomach virus could and probably does cause some CFS, but avoid falling into the diagnosis trap of expecting most of the sufferers of any illness, including CFS, to all have the same malfunction. I'll bet an awful lot of medicos aren't up-to-date on that yet but the sufferers still looking for a reasonable treatment, will sure as heck appreciate the info. And if you could work out a super-pro-wiki framework, it would probably be applicable to many fields. Wouldn't it be better to provide a super-wiki that could be selected to ONLY display the professional content if that was what was wanted? How about a cookie on everyone's
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Steve, Briefly, my thought re a super-medi-wiki is that it only presents theories/contenders rather than definitive answers - and there must be some ratings/voting system.Yes that favours conservative thinking which may become out-of-date. But users will still look for outsider ideas, and it should present the latest kooky ideas as long as they have some backing. I can't believe there isn't a way round any marketing difficulty. Maybe you should write/talk to Kaiser et al and ask what they would like from such a system. Every medico, presumably, has to research/Google info now and therefore will have all kinds of explicit desires for improvements and some ideal database.But aren't governments or UNO funding any projects here? --- 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] Understanding a sick puppy
Mike, On 5/14/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, Like most people here I'm interested in general intelligence. You seem to be talking mainly about specific domain intelligence - medical diagnosis - not say, a computer or agent that will encompass many domains. All domains that I have looked at, including electronics repair, mechanical repair, politics, and personal relationships, all have essentially the SAME structure - figure 6 shaped cause-and-effect chains. It is just the domain-specific details that vary from one domain to the next. I like the health domain. I don't use medical (referring to medicines, which are seldom needed to cure illnesses) diagnosis (indicating a decision as to the problem, when usually no such decision is needed to effect a true cure) because it contains SO much misleading baggage. Also, an AGI with only a 5% success rate is a SPECTACULAR success with an ability to save millions of people worldwide. Further, doctors are **SO** universally incompetent as repairmen despite their domain-specific knowledge of operation, so that even crude programs can handily outperform them. My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. In the same way, it would be great to have a database that could immediately make long lists of suggestions for any given set of investment requirements. That too would clearly have to leave the user to choose. This is a somewhat different challenge. Most investment contests include a random selector, e.g. the blindfolded moderator throwing darts. Usually the random selector wins these contests, cor complex reasons that are just now being figured out. The same reasons that game theory solutions must end in a weighted random selection also appear to govern investment decisions. I'm dubious about any program here making specific recommendations/ diagnoses - because the medical field like every other professional field is rife with conflicting opinions about the great majority of areas/illnesses. I think that the key is for such a program to present every view and let the user bet their life as they choose. Until you have been there and had to make a decision that would dramatically change your life no matter what the result, to live or die based on a collection of uncertainties, it is really hard to express just how this feels. Certainly, few people want a computer to make this decision for them. There are just so many problematic areas. It's almost the equivalent of a program that would make political recommendations about how to run a country. Could it do worse than Bush? Present world leaders clearly have no understanding of reverse reductio ad absurdum, which as I see it is THE key to solving the really nasty political problems, e.g. the Middle East. With this understanding and a database of every political challenge in recorded history, I believe that human leadership could be eclipsed by a rather simple program, with the complexity in the data. I welcome your rare interest in discussing the end-problems of AGI, (as distinct from the engineering problems) in detail - but if it's to be AGI it has to be couched in general terms - you have to explain how your or any approach will apply across domains. What are the common problem-solving concepts, say, that will enable a program or agent to think and learn about symptoms of breakdown/ malfunction or whatever in say, medicine/the human body, cars/mechanics, plumbing, electrical systems, computer hardware, nuclear power stations, sick plants etc. ? The domain that is my 2nd most examined is electronic repair. There, the root cause is often something like the engineer missing an important day of classes or not reading the fine print in a component specification. This often results in a component that must perform better than specified, and which may be overloaded causing eventual failure. Rarely does the replacement of a defective component constitute a cure when the source of extraordinary stress remains. Determining just what sorts of design errors to look for usually starts with looking at past failures. Often a type of circuit board, of which there are several in service, will have had only a few parts ever replaced. With luck
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Steve/MT: My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. Steve, I can loosely appreciate the problems of persuasion, but, given your enthusiasm for this field, I would urge you to keep trying - there has to be a way round them. Surely, the angle has to be something like a super-medical-wiki-but-with-professional-standards has to be of universal use to MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS as well as the layperson, (and the layman will still need professional advice on the info. provided). The immediate marketing angle that occurs to me is: this will keep you, the medico, up-to-date and ensure you don't give out-of-date unprofessional advice (and will give your advice an imprimatur in that you will always be able to say you checked the most reliable source). [No doubt there may be many other angles]. My guess is an awful lot of medicos WON'T be up-to-date. For example, last year there was a discovery re CFS how it's down to a stomach virus - which looks right, and fits the symptoms. I'll bet an awful lot of medicos aren't up-to-date on that yet but the sufferers still looking for a reasonable treatment, will sure as heck appreciate the info. And if you could work out a super-pro-wiki framework, it would probably be applicable to many fields. Re the general problem-solving issue, I was groping for an essentially philosophical discussion [because that's what it has to be] of some kind of general problem-solving language/ set-of-concepts, such as we already have - problem, idea, theory, evidence, etc. I think this is the sort of area AGI-ers take for granted but is actually majorly difficult. P.S. Wouldn't medical insurers have the greatest interest of all in establishing a super-medical-wiki? --- 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] Understanding a sick puppy
There is something called Evidence Based Medicine that is in the works. In the book Super Crunchers Ian Ayres devotes a chapter(4) to such systems and the reaction of doctors. Diagnostics by examination of huge databases is evidently pretty far along. The book points out that it is the electronic collection of things like medical records that is enabling the crunching of data and the improved diagnosis. from the book - A bunch of medical schools and private corporations are developing the first generation of diagnostic-decision support software. A diagnostic program named 'Isabel' allows physicians to enter a patients symptoms and receive a list of the most likely causes. It will even tell the doctor whether a patient's symptoms might be caused by the use of over 4,000 drugs. The Isabel database associates more than 10,000 specific illnesses with a host of clinical findings, lab results... I'm not arguing anything here, just suggesting that there are powerful systems being developed that might be worth investigating. The general principle might be that if one has tons of data, he can derive pretty good predictions. Mike Tintner wrote: Steve/MT: My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. Steve, I can loosely appreciate the problems of persuasion, but, given your enthusiasm for this field, I would urge you to keep trying - there has to be a way round them. Surely, the angle has to be something like a super-medical-wiki-but-with-professional-standards has to be of universal use to MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS as well as the layperson, (and the layman will still need professional advice on the info. provided). The immediate marketing angle that occurs to me is: this will keep you, the medico, up-to-date and ensure you don't give out-of-date unprofessional advice (and will give your advice an imprimatur in that you will always be able to say you checked the most reliable source). [No doubt there may be many other angles]. My guess is an awful lot of medicos WON'T be up-to-date. For example, last year there was a discovery re CFS how it's down to a stomach virus - which looks right, and fits the symptoms. I'll bet an awful lot of medicos aren't up-to-date on that yet but the sufferers still looking for a reasonable treatment, will sure as heck appreciate the info. And if you could work out a super-pro-wiki framework, it would probably be applicable to many fields. Re the general problem-solving issue, I was groping for an essentially philosophical discussion [because that's what it has to be] of some kind of general problem-solving language/ set-of-concepts, such as we already have - problem, idea, theory, evidence, etc. I think this is the sort of area AGI-ers take for granted but is actually majorly difficult. P.S. Wouldn't medical insurers have the greatest interest of all in establishing a super-medical-wiki? *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- 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] Understanding a sick puppy
Thanks. That's not surprising. The second thought that occurs is that actually an intelligent patient's wiki approach *might* be a good idea - something that links to the mushrooming patients' forums - and might end up competing with the pros as wikip. competes with Encylo. Britannica. Patients have more time for the finer details of illness and treatment (like boy does that treament hurt :) ). Stan, There is something called Evidence Based Medicine that is in the works. In the book Super Crunchers Ian Ayres devotes a chapter(4) to such systems and the reaction of doctors. Diagnostics by examination of huge databases is evidently pretty far along. The book points out that it is the electronic collection of things like medical records that is enabling the crunching of data and the improved diagnosis. from the book - A bunch of medical schools and private corporations are developing the first generation of diagnostic-decision support software. A diagnostic program named 'Isabel' allows physicians to enter a patients symptoms and receive a list of the most likely causes. It will even tell the doctor whether a patient's symptoms might be caused by the use of over 4,000 drugs. The Isabel database associates more than 10,000 specific illnesses with a host of clinical findings, lab results... I'm not arguing anything here, just suggesting that there are powerful systems being developed that might be worth investigating. The general principle might be that if one has tons of data, he can derive pretty good predictions. Mike Tintner wrote: Steve/MT: My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. Steve, I can loosely appreciate the problems of persuasion, but, given your enthusiasm for this field, I would urge you to keep trying - there has to be a way round them. Surely, the angle has to be something like a super-medical-wiki-but-with-professional-standards has to be of universal use to MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS as well as the layperson, (and the layman will still need professional advice on the info. provided). The immediate marketing angle that occurs to me is: this will keep you, the medico, up-to-date and ensure you don't give out-of-date unprofessional advice (and will give your advice an imprimatur in that you will always be able to say you checked the most reliable source). [No doubt there may be many other angles]. My guess is an awful lot of medicos WON'T be up-to-date. For example, last year there was a discovery re CFS how it's down to a stomach virus - which looks right, and fits the symptoms. I'll bet an awful lot of medicos aren't up-to-date on that yet but the sufferers still looking for a reasonable treatment, will sure as heck appreciate the info. And if you could work out a super-pro-wiki framework, it would probably be applicable to many fields. Re the general problem-solving issue, I was groping for an essentially philosophical discussion [because that's what it has to be] of some kind of general problem-solving language/ set-of-concepts, such as we already have - problem, idea, theory, evidence, etc. I think this is the sort of area AGI-ers take for granted but is actually majorly difficult. P.S. Wouldn't medical insurers have the greatest interest of all in establishing a super-medical-wiki? *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Steve, This is more or less where I came into this group. You've picked a, if not the, classic AGI problem. The problem that distinguishes it from narrow AI. Problematic, no right answer. And every option could often be wrong. I tried to open a similar problem for discussion way back - how do you invest in the stockmarket right now? There are an infinity of such problems. The problem with such problems is that you can''t program for them. Why? Because 1) neither you nor your AGI if you have one, know the right answer. There ain't one. In fact, every option could be wrong. And mistakes can be expensive. ANd you may have got things fundamentally wrong (as per the ulcer problem). And 2) you and your AGI are learner-livers, so you may not only have got things fundamentally wrong at the domain level, but at the cross-domain, still deeper level of how to learn and how to solve problems generally. (And Bayes won't help you if your assumptions are fundamentally wrong). You have to find out how to deal with these problems - and how to learn and solve problems generally - as you go along, and you never stop learning. If you think you've got a way of programming - in effect, a right way to live - for problems one has - by definition - inadequate knowledge about at every level - and can usually *never* get adequate, definitive knowledge about, pray tell - with reference to your particular problem.. This is the most central question in AGI, and my experience is- everyone avoids it like the plague. P.S. A psychologist would point out that you may well have unconsciously intended v. sick puppy as a metaphor for AGI :} . Steve: I am right now up against an understanding issue that might be a worthy foil for the present discussions. The thing to be understood: My daughter is a pug dog breeder, and considering my health interests, she gave me a hopeless case failure-to-thrive puppy to try to save ~3 days ago, that was apparently within hours of death upon arrival. Theories abound as to what the underlying problem is, so it would appear that the best course to success would be one that considers as many possibilities as possible. Saleable puppies are worth ~US$1K each, whereas UNsaleable puppies have a large negative value because of the great difficulties in disposition thereof. Therefore, extensive testing for hypothyroidism, Addison's, etc. have been tentatively ruled out on the theory that a puppy with such a problem would be worth more dead than alive, so why bother testing or treating such a puppy? Present theories: 1. The vet thinks that evidence of hydrocephalus, failure of the bones on the top of the skull to fuse together, may indicate a brain disorder. He thinks that some combination of a splitting headache and mis-wiring of the metabolic control system resulting from this explains everything. 2. I see that the puppy's temperature is running low and he greatly likes to sit at the outlet of an electric heater, and he looks weeks younger than he actually is, so perhaps his development is retarded due to a metabolic disorder of some sort, and the failure of the bones in his skull to fuse is just another part of retarded development - in short, that the vet may have cause and effect reversed. 3. My lady decided to try treating the puppy as though it were the age that it appeared to be - small enough to still be nursing, so she started feeding it a goat's milk formula, and it seems to be doing much better. 4. My daughter thinks everything is genetic and keeps a mental scoreboard of the problems with the puppies coming from each bitch. When one has had too many problem puppies, she neuters the bitch and sells it. Knowledge and experience would seem to favor the vet's theory. Unfortunately, there is no success path leading from this theory, so why even bother to consider it, even if it may very well be correct? My metabolic theories may be a little better, because there are ways of surviving with hypothyroidism, Addison's. etc. However, success would still leave a negative-value result. My lady's implied theory of slow development would, if correct, lead to the best result - perhaps even a new sort of mineature pug that might be of astronomical value as a stud. My daughter's theory, though draconian in nature, does work at the heart of such problems. However, where problems have hidden familial or environmental origins, it has the problem that it can lead to some really bad decisions, as neutering a good breeder reduces a ~US$5K dog to ~US$500 in value and eliminates the source of future ~US$1K puppies. As you can see, technical correctness of a theory ends up having secondary value compared with potential result. I have also seen this in automobile repair, where the best theory is the one with the least expensive correction. At least where you are wrong, the cost is minimized. Any thoughts? Steve Richfield
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Mike, On 5/14/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is more or less where I came into this group. You've picked a, if not the, classic AGI problem. The problem that distinguishes it from narrow AI. Problematic, no right answer. And every option could often be wrong. I tried to open a similar problem for discussion way back - how do you invest in the stockmarket right now? There are an infinity of such problems. At least we are on the same page. The problem with such problems is that you can''t program for them. But ... THAT is exactly what my Dr. Eliza program was intended to address!!! Why? YES - let's dive into the presumptions that I believe are leading AGI astray. Because 1) neither you nor your AGI if you have one, know the right answer. Is the operative word here the or right or answer? a) the is probably a misdirection, because there are probably several right answers. b) right has many shades of gray, e.g. cures are greatly preferred to treatments, and some cures/treatments are better than others. Often/usually there is more concern for the costs of being wrong than for the benefit of being correct. c) answer implies that the AGI is making the decision, rather than the user. Ultimately, at least in this case, it is the caregiver who makes the final decision where to invest their money and/or effort. There ain't one. In fact, every option could be wrong. Note that each of the options describes a complex cause-and-effect chain, but they have some common links, e.g. the sick puppy is clearly metabolically impaired, though whatever link leads to this link is unclear. Further, there are a very finite number of potential links leading to metabolic impairment (dehydration, organ malfunction, brain malfunction, premature weaning, etc.) And mistakes can be expensive. Indeed, the primary initial effort is to minimize the cost of mistakes while further information is being gathered. Here, we have kept the puppy alive for 2 days longer than it was estimated to live, and it seems to be getting better. Unfortunately, care has been SO careful regarding the many hazards indicated by various theories that little additional information has been gathered, other than the puppy probably does NOT have really serious brain damage, because it gets up out of its bed to eliminate, and sticks really close to one particular adult dog (his father). ANd you may have got things fundamentally wrong (as per the ulcer problem). In this case, most theories MUST be wrong because they are mutually exclusive. And 2) you and your AGI are learner-livers, so you may not only have got things fundamentally wrong at the domain level, but at the cross-domain, still deeper level of how to learn and how to solve problems generally. Hopefully, frequent updating of the problem statement being analyzed will compensate for errors here. (And Bayes won't help you if your assumptions are fundamentally wrong). I think that the key here is to DO SOMETHING. Changing the situation will act as an experiment and result in gathering more information to be placed into the problem statement. The key is to not go too far and kill the puppy by continuing in any particular wrong direction. Obviously, the puppy would have been dead before the sun set if he hadn't been fed SOMETHING. His choice of goat's milk formula over the best available puppy food tells a LOT. You have to find out how to deal with these problems - and how to learn and solve problems generally - as you go along, and you never stop learning. There are SO many subtle clues that suggest cause and effect chain links. The BIG problem with puppies over people is that you can't simply ask them direct questions. I have been indirectly asking questions by offering the puppy varying things to eat and drink and observing his preferences, offering warm and cool environments to choose between, etc. In the case of people, really subtle clues guide this process, e.g. most metabolic problems result in what the military calls IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) malfunctions in the immune system, which then cause minor symptoms like allergies, asthma, minor infections, etc. There may be a really MAJOR presenting symptom like cancer or COPD (emphysema), but these almost always go along with many minor symptoms which the patient may have completely dismissed as a part of being quite normal. Once you know that (for example) there is a metabolic (cellular environment) problem, the list of usual culprits is relatively short and easy to check, and most of these problems are easily fixed. Note that the medical/legal system has made this approach ILLEGAL and will take away the medical license of any physician who does this! I have seen a couple of very good doctors go through this process. The problem is that doctors, and most especially the doctors on the medical quality assurance boards, have absolutely no applicable education or experience in
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Steve, Like most people here I'm interested in general intelligence. You seem to be talking mainly about specific domain intelligence - medical diagnosis - not say, a computer or agent that will encompass many domains. My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. In the same way, it would be great to have a database that could immediately make long lists of suggestions for any given set of investment requirements. That too would clearly have to leave the user to choose. I'm dubious about any program here making specific recommendations/ diagnoses - because the medical field like every other professional field is rife with conflicting opinions about the great majority of areas/illnesses. There are just so many problematic areas. It's almost the equivalent of a program that would make political recommendations about how to run a country. I welcome your rare interest in discussing the end-problems of AGI, (as distinct from the engineering problems) in detail - but if it's to be AGI it has to be couched in general terms - you have to explain how your or any approach will apply across domains. What are the common problem-solving concepts, say, that will enable a program or agent to think and learn about symptoms of breakdown/ malfunction or whatever in say, medicine/the human body, cars/mechanics, plumbing, electrical systems, computer hardware, nuclear power stations, sick plants etc. ? Mike, On 5/14/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is more or less where I came into this group. You've picked a, if not the, classic AGI problem. The problem that distinguishes it from narrow AI. Problematic, no right answer. And every option could often be wrong. I tried to open a similar problem for discussion way back - how do you invest in the stockmarket right now? There are an infinity of such problems. At least we are on the same page. The problem with such problems is that you can''t program for them. But ... THAT is exactly what my Dr. Eliza program was intended to address!!! Why? YES - let's dive into the presumptions that I believe are leading AGI astray. Because 1) neither you nor your AGI if you have one, know the right answer. Is the operative word here the or right or answer? a) the is probably a misdirection, because there are probably several right answers. b) right has many shades of gray, e.g. cures are greatly preferred to treatments, and some cures/treatments are better than others. Often/usually there is more concern for the costs of being wrong than for the benefit of being correct. c) answer implies that the AGI is making the decision, rather than the user. Ultimately, at least in this case, it is the caregiver who makes the final decision where to invest their money and/or effort. There ain't one. In fact, every option could be wrong. Note that each of the options describes a complex cause-and-effect chain, but they have some common links, e.g. the sick puppy is clearly metabolically impaired, though whatever link leads to this link is unclear. Further, there are a very finite number of potential links leading to metabolic impairment (dehydration, organ malfunction, brain malfunction, premature weaning, etc.) And mistakes can be expensive. Indeed, the primary initial effort is to minimize the cost of mistakes while further information is being gathered. Here, we have kept the puppy alive for 2 days longer than it was estimated to live, and it seems to be getting better. Unfortunately, care has been SO careful regarding the many hazards indicated by various theories that little additional information has been gathered, other than the puppy probably does NOT have really serious brain damage, because it gets up out of its bed to eliminate, and sticks really close to one particular adult dog (his father). ANd you may have got things fundamentally wrong (as per the ulcer problem). In this case, most theories MUST be wrong because they are mutually exclusive. And 2) you and your AGI are learner-livers, so you may not only have got things fundamentally wrong at the domain level, but at the cross-domain, still deeper level of how to learn and how to solve problems generally. Hopefully, frequent updating of the problem statement being analyzed will compensate for errors here. (And Bayes won't help you if your assumptions are fundamentally wrong). I think that the key here is to DO SOMETHING. Changing the situation will act
