Dave,
I agree completely on your point of having a general unifying system that
will solve a simple problem. This system when scaled should be able to solve
all the other problems that you were talking about.
How will we recognize the solution when we get it. I believe that it will be
elegant
What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting
Israel?. That is my question my 2 pennyworth. Other people can elaborate.
If that question can be answered you can have an automated advisor in BQ.
Suppose I want to know about the characteristics of concrete. Of course one
thing
No, Dave I vaguely agree here that you have to start simple. To think of
movies is massively confused - rather like saying: when we have created an
entire new electric supply system for cars, we will have solved the problem of
replacing gasoline - first you have to focus just on inventing a
Abram,
I feel a responsibility to make an effort to explain myself when someone
doesn't understand what I am saying, but once I have gone over the material
sufficiently, if the person is still arguing with me about it I will just
say that I have already explained myself in the previous messages.
Ian: Suppose I want to know about the characteristics of concrete
You seem to think you can know about an object without ever having seen it or
physically interacted with it? As long as you have a set of words for the
world, you need never have actually experienced or been in the world?
You
‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has
forgotten the gift.’
‘The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap
in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and
Non-reply.
Name one industry/ section of technology that began with, say, the invention of
the car, skipping all the many thousands of stages from the invention of the
wheel. What you and others are proposing is far, far more outrageous.
It won't require one but a million strokes of genius in
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 problems
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 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 problem as being able to come up with
reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able
to
Fogel originally used the phrase to argue that evolutionary computation
makes sense as a cognitive architecture for a general-purpose AI problem
solver.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH
OK. so you're saying: AGI is solving problems where you have to *devise* a
method of solution/solving the problem and is that devising in effect or
actually/formally? - **
vs
narrow AI wh. is where you *apply* a pre-existing method of solution/solving
the problem ?
And are you happy
And are you happy with:
AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply
to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at
least not in their totality)
Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to
recognize where past solutions can
I checked the term program space and found a few authors who used it, but
it seems to be an ad-hoc definition that is not widely used. It seems to be
an amalgamation of term sample space with the the set of all programs or
something like that. Of course, the simple comprehension of the idea of,
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 equated with general method) - and are programmable (a program is a
method of solution)
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, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: Mike Tintner
The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the
computer's or any agent's thinking about a problem. Programs/Turing machines
are only one way of structuring thinking/problemsolving - by, among other
things, giving the computer a method/process of solution. There is an
I made a remark about confusing a domain with the values that was wrong. What
I should have said is that you cannot just treat a domain of functions or of
programs as if they were a domain of numbers or values and expect them to
act in ways that are familiar from a study of numbers.
Of course
18 matches
Mail list logo
