ctions, or produce a formula, whatever you
> may want to do].
>
> *From:* rob levy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM
> *To:* agi
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
>
> A "child" AGI should be expected to need help learning how to
mprehensive, step-by-step paradigm of narrow AI.
[The rock wall/toybox tests BTW are AGI activities, where it is *impossible* to
give full instructions, or produce a formula, whatever you may want to do].
From: rob levy
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definit
A "child" AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many
problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs
to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is
all stating the obvious.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney wr
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM
Subject: 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&#x
Training data is not available in many real problems. I don't think training
data should be used as the main learning mechanism. It likely won't solve
any of the problems.
On Jul 21, 2010 2:52 AM, "deepakjnath" wrote:
Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC. The training sets
ca
It is not something you could do on a PC, and it won't be cheap.
>
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
>
>
> --
> *From:* Mike Tintner
> *To:* agi
> *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definition
cheap.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM
Subject: 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 a
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,
, 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 eq
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
ses 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
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 p
ke Tintner
> 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, J
gt; *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
>> a
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 te
ral 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 e
ent 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
>>
>
>
> 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 pr
us 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 honour
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, 2
bsolutely 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
entire
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 - thi
velling 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
akjnath
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
ither 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 wi
>
>
> *From:* deepakjnath
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM
> *To:* agi
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
>
> So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing
> it right?
>
> Even if I believe that my system is
esn't really matter which kind of test you start with - that is partly
the function of having a good.definition of AGI .
From: deepakjnath
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: David Jones
To: agi
Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 3:10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
If you can't convince someone, clearly somethi
If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't
think a "test" is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented
much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is
AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how w
So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing
it right?
Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing
the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced
AI system.
I have read the toy box problem and rock wall
I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of
AGI.
Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See
archives).
I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from
rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks).
31 matches
Mail list logo
