Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Solomonoff Induction is not well-defined because it is either incomputable and/or absurdly irrelevant. This is where the communication breaks down. I have no idea why you would make a remark like that. It is interesting that you are an incremental-progress guy. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, Saying that something approximates Solomonoff Induction doesn't have any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually represents. And does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? I'm not sure what you mean here; Solomonoff induction and the full program space both seem like well-defined concepts to me. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. A polynom SAT would certainly be a major breakthrough for AI and computation generally; and if the brain utilizes something like such an algorithm, then AGI could almost certainly never get off the ground without it. However, I'm far from saying there must be a breakthrough coming in this area, and I don't have any other areas in mind. I'm more of an incremental-progress type guy. :) IMHO, what the field needs to advance is for more people to recognize the importance of relational methods (as you put it I think, the importance of structure). --Abram On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: Well I guess I misunderstood what you said. But, you did say, The question of whether the function would be useful for the sorts of things we keep talking about ... well, I think the best argument that I can give is that MDL is strongly supported by both theory and practice for many *subsets* of the full program space. The concern might be that, so far, it is only supported by *theory* for the full program space-- and since approximations have very bad error-bound properties, it may never be supported in practice. My reply to this would be that it still appears useful to approximate Solomonoff induction, since most successful predictors can be viewed as approximations to Solomonoff induction. It approximates solomonoff induction appears to be a good _explanation_ for the success of many systems. Saying that something approximates Solomonoff Induction doesn't have any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually represents. And does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? I can see how some of the kinds of things that you have talked about (to use my own phrase in order to avoid having to list all the kinds of claims that I think have been made about this subject) could be produced from finite sets, but I don't understand why you think they are important. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. Can you give me a simple example and explanation of the kind of thing you have in mind, and why you think it is important? Jim Bromer On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, The statements about bounds are mathematically provable... furthermore, I was just agreeing with what you said, and pointing out that the statement could be proven. So what is your issue? I am confused at your response. Is it because I didn't include the proofs in my email? --Abram *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: 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
[agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
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 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti --- 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can work towards. ? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti *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 -- cheers, Deepak --- 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
not really. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:41 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can work towards. ? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti *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 -- cheers, 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 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
Jim, I think you are using a different definition of well-defined :). I am saying Solomonoff induction is totally well-defined as a mathematical concept. You are saying it isn't well-defined as a computational entity. These are both essentially true. Why you might insist that program-space is not well-defined, on the other hand, I do not know. --Abram On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Solomonoff Induction is not well-defined because it is either incomputable and/or absurdly irrelevant. This is where the communication breaks down. I have no idea why you would make a remark like that. It is interesting that you are an incremental-progress guy. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, Saying that something approximates Solomonoff Induction doesn't have any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually represents. And does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? I'm not sure what you mean here; Solomonoff induction and the full program space both seem like well-defined concepts to me. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. A polynom SAT would certainly be a major breakthrough for AI and computation generally; and if the brain utilizes something like such an algorithm, then AGI could almost certainly never get off the ground without it. However, I'm far from saying there must be a breakthrough coming in this area, and I don't have any other areas in mind. I'm more of an incremental-progress type guy. :) IMHO, what the field needs to advance is for more people to recognize the importance of relational methods (as you put it I think, the importance of structure). --Abram On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: Well I guess I misunderstood what you said. But, you did say, The question of whether the function would be useful for the sorts of things we keep talking about ... well, I think the best argument that I can give is that MDL is strongly supported by both theory and practice for many *subsets* of the full program space. The concern might be that, so far, it is only supported by *theory* for the full program space-- and since approximations have very bad error-bound properties, it may never be supported in practice. My reply to this would be that it still appears useful to approximate Solomonoff induction, since most successful predictors can be viewed as approximations to Solomonoff induction. It approximates solomonoff induction appears to be a good _explanation_ for the success of many systems. Saying that something approximates Solomonoff Induction doesn't have any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually represents. And does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? I can see how some of the kinds of things that you have talked about (to use my own phrase in order to avoid having to list all the kinds of claims that I think have been made about this subject) could be produced from finite sets, but I don't understand why you think they are important. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. Can you give me a simple example and explanation of the kind of thing you have in mind, and why you think it is important? Jim Bromer On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, The statements about bounds are mathematically provable... furthermore, I was just agreeing with what you said, and pointing out that the statement could be proven. So what is your issue? I am confused at your response. Is it because I didn't include the proofs in my email? --Abram *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 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 RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
Deepak wrote on Sun, 18 Jul 2010: I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test that can really convince a majority of today's AGIers that a System is true AGI? Obvious AGI functionality is the default test for AGI. http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html is an incipient AGI with slowly accreting AGI functionality and with easy accessability due to its running in the MSIE browser. Is there some real prize like the XPrize for AGI or AI in general? thanks, Deepak As others on the AGI list have pointed out, there may not yet be such an AGI Prize, but it would be easy to create one and announce it in http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.contests on Usenet. Meanwhile, in other A(G)I news, someone is creating an AI Cookbook in wiki format, with e.g. http://aicookbook.com/wiki/AiMind as a stub added yesterday by Yours Truly, ATM/Mentifex --- 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
[agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. --- 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
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, I think you are using a different definition of well-defined :). I am saying Solomonoff induction is totally well-defined as a mathematical concept. You are saying it isn't well-defined as a computational entity. These are both essentially true. Why you might insist that program-space is not well-defined, on the other hand, I do not know. --Abram I said: does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? Solomonoff Induction is not totally well-defined as a mathematical concept, as you said it was. In both of these instances you used qualifications of excess. Totally, well-defined and full. It would be like me saying that because your thesis is wrong in a few ways, your thesis is 'totally wrong in full concept space or something like that. Jim Bromer On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Solomonoff Induction is not well-defined because it is either incomputable and/or absurdly irrelevant. This is where the communication breaks down. I have no idea why you would make a remark like that. It is interesting that you are an incremental-progress guy. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, Saying that something approximates Solomonoff Induction doesn't have any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually represents. And does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? I'm not sure what you mean here; Solomonoff induction and the full program space both seem like well-defined concepts to me. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. A polynom SAT would certainly be a major breakthrough for AI and computation generally; and if the brain utilizes something like such an algorithm, then AGI could almost certainly never get off the ground without it. However, I'm far from saying there must be a breakthrough coming in this area, and I don't have any other areas in mind. I'm more of an incremental-progress type guy. :) IMHO, what the field needs to advance is for more people to recognize the importance of relational methods (as you put it I think, the importance of structure). --Abram On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: Well I guess I misunderstood what you said. But, you did say, The question of whether the function would be useful for the sorts of things we keep talking about ... well, I think the best argument that I can give is that MDL is strongly supported by both theory and practice for many *subsets* of the full program space. The concern might be that, so far, it is only supported by *theory* for the full program space-- and since approximations have very bad error-bound properties, it may never be supported in practice. My reply to this would be that it still appears useful to approximate Solomonoff induction, since most successful predictors can be viewed as approximations to Solomonoff induction. It approximates solomonoff induction appears to be a good _explanation_ for the success of many systems. Saying that something approximates Solomonoff Induction doesn't have any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually represents. And does talk about the full program space, merit mentioning? I can see how some of the kinds of things that you have talked about (to use my own phrase in order to avoid having to list all the kinds of claims that I think have been made about this subject) could be produced from finite sets, but I don't understand why you think they are important. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. Can you give me a simple example and explanation of the kind of thing you have in mind, and why you think it is important? Jim Bromer On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, The statements about bounds are mathematically provable... furthermore, I was just agreeing with what you said, and pointing out that the statement could be proven. So what is your issue? I am confused at your response. Is it because I didn't include the proofs in my email? --Abram *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/ |
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 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. *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 -- cheers, Deepak --- 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
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 what you have built fits into the bigger scheme of things. There is no such point at which you can say something is AGI and not AGI. Intelligence is a very subjective thing that really depends on your goals. Someone will always say it is not good enough. But if it really works, people will quickly realize it based on results. What you want is to develop a system that can learn about the world or its environment in a general way so that it can solve arbitrary problems, be able to plan in general ways, act in general ways and perform the types of goals you want it to perform. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. *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 -- cheers, 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 RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: David Jones davidher...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com 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 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 what you have built fits into the bigger scheme of things. There is no such point at which you can say something is AGI and not AGI. Intelligence is a very subjective thing that really depends on your goals. Someone will always say it is not good enough. But if it really works, people will quickly realize it based on results. What you want is to develop a system that can learn about the world or its environment in a general way so that it can solve arbitrary problems, be able to plan in general ways, act in general ways and perform the types of goals you want it to perform. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- cheers, Deepak agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives:
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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 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 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- cheers, Deepak 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:
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.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 *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 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S.
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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.com wrote: 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 *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 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate
Re: [agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
In my view the main obstacle to AGI is the understanding of Natural Language. If we have NL comprehension we have the basis for doing a whole host of marvellous things. There is the Turing test. A good question to ask is What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. Google translated wsT jw AlmErkp or وسط جو المعركة as central air battle. Correct is the climatic environmental battle or a more free translation would be the battle against climate and environment. In Turing competitions no one ever asks the questions that really would tell AGI apart from a brand X chatterbox. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethods http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethodsWe can I think say that anything which can carry out the program of my blog would be well on its way. AGI will also be the link between NL and formal mathematics. Let me take yet another example. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/deepknowled Google translated it as 4 times the temperature. Ponder this, you have in fact 3 chances to get this right. 1) درجة means degree. GT has not translated this word. In this context it means power. 2) If you search for Stefan Boltzmann or Black Body Google gives you the correct law. 3) The translation is obviously mathematically incorrect from the dimensional stand-point. This 3 things in fact represent different aspects of knowledge. In AGI they all have to be present. The other interesting point is that there are programs in existence now that will address the last two questions. A translator that produces OWL solves 2. If we match up AGI to Mizar we can put dimensions into the proof engine. There are a great many things on the Web which will solve specific problems. NL is *THE* problem since it will allow navigation between the different programs on the Web. MOLTO BTW does have its mathematical parts even though it is primerally billed as a translator. - Ian Parker On 18 July 2010 14:41, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can work towards. ? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti *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 -- cheers, 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 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
Ian, Although most people see natural language as one of the most important parts of AGI, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize that solving natural language could be done with sufficient knowledge of the world and sufficient ability to learn this knowledge automatically. That's why i don't consider natural language a problem we can focus on until we solve the knowledge problem... which is what I'm focusing on. Dave 2010/7/18 Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com In my view the main obstacle to AGI is the understanding of Natural Language. If we have NL comprehension we have the basis for doing a whole host of marvellous things. There is the Turing test. A good question to ask is What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. Google translated wsT jw AlmErkp or وسط جو المعركة as central air battle. Correct is the climatic environmental battle or a more free translation would be the battle against climate and environment. In Turing competitions no one ever asks the questions that really would tell AGI apart from a brand X chatterbox. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethods http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethodsWe can I think say that anything which can carry out the program of my blog would be well on its way. AGI will also be the link between NL and formal mathematics. Let me take yet another example. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/deepknowled Google translated it as 4 times the temperature. Ponder this, you have in fact 3 chances to get this right. 1) درجة means degree. GT has not translated this word. In this context it means power. 2) If you search for Stefan Boltzmann or Black Body Google gives you the correct law. 3) The translation is obviously mathematically incorrect from the dimensional stand-point. This 3 things in fact represent different aspects of knowledge. In AGI they all have to be present. The other interesting point is that there are programs in existence now that will address the last two questions. A translator that produces OWL solves 2. If we match up AGI to Mizar we can put dimensions into the proof engine. There are a great many things on the Web which will solve specific problems. NL is *THE* problem since it will allow navigation between the different programs on the Web. MOLTO BTW does have its mathematical parts even though it is primerally billed as a translator. - Ian Parker On 18 July 2010 14:41, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can work towards. ? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti *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 -- cheers, 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 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
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 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 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 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 problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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). 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. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's -
Re: [agi] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
Oh, I wanted to add one thing that I've learned recently. The core problem of AGI is to come up with hypotheses (hopefully the right hypothesis or one that is good enough is included) and then determine whether the hypothesis is 1) acceptable and 2) better than other hypotheses. In addition, you have to have a way to decide *when* to look for better hypotheses, because you can't just always be looking at all possible hypotheses. So, with that in mind, the reason that natural language can only be very roughly approximated without a lot more knowledge is because there isn't sufficient knowledge to say that one hypothesis is better than another in the vast majority of cases. The AI doesn't have sufficient *reason* to think that the right hypothesis is better than others. The only way to give it that sufficient reason is to give it sufficient knowledge. Dave 2010/7/18 David Jones davidher...@gmail.com Ian, Although most people see natural language as one of the most important parts of AGI, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize that solving natural language could be done with sufficient knowledge of the world and sufficient ability to learn this knowledge automatically. That's why i don't consider natural language a problem we can focus on until we solve the knowledge problem... which is what I'm focusing on. Dave 2010/7/18 Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com In my view the main obstacle to AGI is the understanding of Natural Language. If we have NL comprehension we have the basis for doing a whole host of marvellous things. There is the Turing test. A good question to ask is What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. Google translated wsT jw AlmErkp or وسط جو المعركة as central air battle. Correct is the climatic environmental battle or a more free translation would be the battle against climate and environment. In Turing competitions no one ever asks the questions that really would tell AGI apart from a brand X chatterbox. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethods http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethodsWe can I think say that anything which can carry out the program of my blog would be well on its way. AGI will also be the link between NL and formal mathematics. Let me take yet another example. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/deepknowled Google translated it as 4 times the temperature. Ponder this, you have in fact 3 chances to get this right. 1) درجة means degree. GT has not translated this word. In this context it means power. 2) If you search for Stefan Boltzmann or Black Body Google gives you the correct law. 3) The translation is obviously mathematically incorrect from the dimensional stand-point. This 3 things in fact represent different aspects of knowledge. In AGI they all have to be present. The other interesting point is that there are programs in existence now that will address the last two questions. A translator that produces OWL solves 2. If we match up AGI to Mizar we can put dimensions into the proof engine. There are a great many things on the Web which will solve specific problems. NL is *THE* problem since it will allow navigation between the different programs on the Web. MOLTO BTW does have its mathematical parts even though it is primerally billed as a translator. - Ian Parker On 18 July 2010 14:41, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can work towards. ? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti *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 -- cheers, 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 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
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 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
Jim Bromer wrote: 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. Finding just the shortest program is close enough because it dominates the probability. Or which step in the proof of theorem 1.7.2 in http://www.vetta.org/documents/disSol.pdf do you disagree with? You have been saying that you think Solomonoff induction is wrong, but offering no argument except your own intuition. So why should we care? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 9:09:36 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction 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 | 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
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 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
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 mailto: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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] 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
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 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] Is there any Contest or test to ensure that a System is AGI?
Numbers combined together are a form of language that can form every other language. and... If you insist on using a natural language, why don't you use the language most natural to computers - ie code ( which can directly translates to numbers - machine language ...) Code is better because you can automatically test then observe to see if your new code combination works. It's also more pedantic and doesn't allow ambiguity. On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 21:28 +0100, Ian Parker wrote: In my view the main obstacle to AGI is the understanding of Natural Language. If we have NL comprehension we have the basis for doing a whole host of marvellous things. There is the Turing test. A good question to ask is What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. Google translated wsT jw AlmErkp or وسط جو المعركة as central air battle. Correct is the climatic environmental battle or a more free translation would be the battle against climate and environment. In Turing competitions no one ever asks the questions that really would tell AGI apart from a brand X chatterbox. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/Home/formalmethods We can I think say that anything which can carry out the program of my blog would be well on its way. AGI will also be the link between NL and formal mathematics. Let me take yet another example. http://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/deepknowled Google translated it as 4 times the temperature. Ponder this, you have in fact 3 chances to get this right. 1) درجة means degree. GT has not translated this word. In this context it means power. 2) If you search for Stefan Boltzmann or Black Body Google gives you the correct law. 3) The translation is obviously mathematically incorrect from the dimensional stand-point. This 3 things in fact represent different aspects of knowledge. In AGI they all have to be present. The other interesting point is that there are programs in existence now that will address the last two questions. A translator that produces OWL solves 2. If we match up AGI to Mizar we can put dimensions into the proof engine. There are a great many things on the Web which will solve specific problems. NL is THE problem since it will allow navigation between the different programs on the Web. MOLTO BTW does have its mathematical parts even though it is primerally billed as a translator. - Ian Parker On 18 July 2010 14:41, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can work towards. ? On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com 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 Have you heard about the Turing test? - Panu Horsmalahti agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- cheers, Deepak 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
