MW/MT: Correct me, but I haven't seen any awareness in AI of the huge
difficulties that result from the problem of : how do you test acquired
knowledge?
MW:You're missing seeing it. It's generally phrased as converting data to
knowledge or concept formulation and it's currently generally
MW/MT:... how do you test acquired knowledge?
I have given this problem some thought, regarding the testing of acquired
grammar facts, rules and skills. Here are some points, mostly from my
experience with Cyc.
Before the knowledge is acquired, the mentor (or ultimately the system
This is interesting. I strongly suspect AI has it very wrong.
Narrow AI pretty much *has* to get it wrong because getting it right pretty
much requires/creates a seed AI. AGI has had a lot of conversations about
immediate feedback and self-correcting loops and how active is necessary -- but
My broad point is that there is only one way to test knowledge ultimately -
physically.
Science demands physical evidence for everything.
It then has in effect a graded system of veracity (although there is no
formalised system). The truest knowledge comes from direct physical observation
Mike Tintner wrote:
MW/MT: Correct me, but I haven't seen any awareness in AI of the huge
difficulties that result from the problem of : how do you test acquired
knowledge?
MW:You're missing seeing it. It's generally phrased as converting data
to knowledge or concept formulation and it's
Speaking extremely broadly, of course, I see no alternative to something
like the graded, evidence-based system of veracity, that I'm v. crudely
sketching.- for any real-world knowledge-gatherer, and certainly not for any
would-be superAGI.
Do you? [Google-worship, for instance, won't cut
Everyone knows that perception is the result of a combination of pickup
(bottom-up processing) and expectation (top-down processing). There are many,
many ways to implement this idea.
Richard,
Thanks for describing perception, in the same fashion that I believe is
explained by James Albus
Richard:the idea
that perception is [the] fairly passive reception of impressions... is
so old and out of date that if you pick up a textbook on cognitive
psychology printed 30 years ago you will find it dismissed as wrong.
This is the issue of top-down vs bottom-up processing
No it isn't.
Stephen Reed wrote:
Everyone knows that perception is the result of a combination of pickup
(bottom-up processing) and expectation (top-down processing). There are
many, many ways to implement this idea.
Richard,
Thanks for describing perception, in the same fashion that I believe is
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard:the idea that perception is [the] fairly passive reception
of impressions... is so old and out of date that if you pick up a
textbook on cognitive psychology printed 30 years ago you will find
it dismissed as wrong. This is the issue of top-down vs bottom-up
Richard:Now, if what you *meant* to talk about was links between action and
perception, all well and good, but I was just addressing the above
comment of yours.
I'm certainly not reiterating an ancient debate. This has been from the
start an exploratory thread. Prinz summarises fairly well
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard:Now, if what you *meant* to talk about was links between action and
perception, all well and good, but I was just addressing the above
comment of yours.
I'm certainly not reiterating an ancient debate. This has been from the
start an exploratory thread. Prinz
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:20:13 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] How Bodies of Knowledge Grow
... I agree that Albus is interesting. I am superficially familiar
with his approach.
From my point of view I
Richard:Personally, I think that embodiment makes the development process
vastly
easier, but this black and white declaration of IMPOSSIBLE! that you
shout seems to go too far.
Well, that's the point of discussing this - yes, the culture still allows
your position. But the new cog sci
Richard,
Just an addendum to my question - I'm quite happy to take just one
disembodied subject area. But - and this is an interesting point - since
we're talking A*General*I - there should really be at least two.
---
agi
Archives:
Hi there,
I am coming at AGI from an apparently unique perspective. Back in 2001 I
contracted an incurable illness (idiopathic atrial fibrillation). Having
been involved in a couple of medical research projects in the long distant
past, I simply took this as another project and dived in to find a
Now what I was reaching for at the beginning - was that all the talk of
developing bodies of knowledge in AI/AGI, that I'm seeing, seems to
belong to the old days of separate committees. Mark's comment, for
example, seemed to me reasonably typical - essentially : we can leave
testing till
- Original Message
From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:58:09 PM
Subject: [agi] Comments from a lurker...
[snip] BTW, the principles behind Dr. Eliza are rather unique. I'd be glad to
send some papers to anyone who is
MW: I believe that I was also quite clear with my follow-on comment of a
cart
before the horse problem. Once we know how to acquire and store
knowledge, then we can develop metrics for testing it -- but, for now,
it's too early to go after the problem. as well.
You're basically agreeing with
FWIW, I'll note that a heavy focus on metrics and testing has been part of every
US government funded AI project in history ... and this focus has not
gotten them
very far, generally speaking ...
-- Ben G
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MW: I believe that
I'd be interested in looking at a paper. However, I'll be honest: your
claim of AGI sounds over-inflated, mainly because it sounds like your
algorithm is text-specific and wouldn't help with things like vision,
robot control, etc. Nonetheless, a good 'chatbot' is still something
of interest (I
Claims of having created an impressive AI - sans any credible evidence
- are a dime a dozen. I've lost track of how many times I've read
similar claims being made over the last decade or so, which often lead
to a brief flap of excitement.
However, I have a feeling that one of these days someone
Steve Richfield wrote:
Hi there,
I am coming at AGI from an apparently unique perspective. Back in 2001 I
contracted an incurable illness (idiopathic atrial fibrillation).
Having been involved in a couple of medical research projects in the
long distant past, I simply took this as another
Peruse the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Wwfeature=related
Of course, they are only showing the best stuff. And I am sure there
is plenty of work left to do. But from the variety of behaviors that
are displayed, I would say that the problem of quadraped walking is
killfile user=[EMAIL PROTECTED] reason=bigotry /
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] How Bodies of Knowledge Grow
MW: I believe that I was also quite clear with my follow-on
Impressive. Especially their Rhex robot - v. resilient in v. different
terrains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuRVr8z_WEfeature=related
Peruse the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Wwfeature=related
Of course, they are only showing the best stuff. And I am sure there
is
Stephen,
On 4/10/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:58:09 PM
Subject: [agi] Comments from a lurker...
[snip] BTW, the principles behind Dr. Eliza are
Steve Richfield wrote:
Abram,
On 4/10/08, *Abram Demski* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd be interested in looking at a paper.
How are papers handled on this forum? Do I post it as an attachment, or
just send it to you? What is the netiquette here?
However,
28 matches
Mail list logo
