Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim, An example reference on the theory of computability is Computability and Logic by Boolos, Burgess and Jeffrey. For those who accept the church-turing thesis, this mathematical theory provides a sufficient account of the notion of computability, including the space of possible programs (which is formalized as the set of Turing machines). --Abram On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: 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. For example if you can point to some authoritative source outside the Solomonoff-Kolmogrov crowd that agrees that full program space, as it pertains to definitions like, all possible programs, or my example of, all possible mathematical functions, represents an comprehensible concept that is open to mathematical analysis then tell me about it. We use concepts like the set containing sets that are not members of themselves as a philosophical tool that can lead to the discovery of errors in our assumptions, and in this way such contradictions are of tremendous value. The ability to use critical skills to find flaws in one's own presumptions are critical in comprehension, and if that kind of critical thinking has been turned off for some reason, then the consequences will be predictable. I think compression is a useful field but the idea of universal induction aka Solomonoff Induction is garbage science. It was a good effort on Solomonoff's part, but it didn't work and it is time to move on, as the majority of theorists have. Jim Bromer On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: 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.comwrote: 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/ --
Re: [agi] Seeking Is-a Functionality
Arthur, Your call for an AGI roadmap is well targeted. I suspect that others here have their own, somewhat different roadmaps. These should all be merged, like decks of cards being shuffled together, maybe with percentages attached, so that people could announce that, say, I am 31% of the way to having an AGI. At least this would provide SOME metric for progress. This would apparently place Ben in a awkward position, because on the one hand he is somewhat resistant to precisely defining his efforts, while on the other hand he desperately needs to be able to demonstrate some progress as he works toward something that is useful/salable. Is a is too vague, e.g. in A robot is a machine, it is unclear whether robots and machines are simply two different words for the same thing, or whether robots are a member of the class known as machines. There are also other more perverse potential meanings, e.g. that a single robot is a machine, but that multiple robots are something different, e.g. a junk pile. In Dr. Eliza, I (attempt to) deal with ambiguous statements by having the final parser demand an unambiguous statement, and utilize my idiom resolver to recognize common ambiguous statements and fill in the gaps with clearer words. Hence, simple unambiguous statements and common gapping works, but less common gapping fails, as do complex statements that can't be split into 2 or more simple statements. I suspect that you may be heading toward the common brick wall of paradigm limitation, where you initially adopt an oversimplified paradigm to get something to work, and then run into the limitations of that oversimplified paradigm. For example, Dr. Eliza is up against its own paradigm limitations that we have discussed here. Hence, it may be time for some paradigm overhaul if your efforts are to continue smoothly ahead. I hope this helps. Steve = On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:20 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote: Tues.20.JUL.2010 -- Seeking Is-a Functionality Recently our overall goal in coding MindForth has been to build up an ability for the AI to engage in self-referential thought. In fact, SelfReferentialThought is the Milestone next to be achieved on the RoadMap of the Google Code MindForth project. However, we are jumping ahead a little when we allow ourselves to take up the enticing challenge of coding Is-a functionality when we have work left over to perform on fleshing out question-word queries and pronominal gender assignments. Such tasks are the loathsome scutwork of coding an AI Mind, so we reinvigorate our sense of AI ambition by breaking new ground and by leaving old ground to be conquered more thoroughly as time goes by. We simply want our budding AI mind to think thoughts like the following. A robin is a bird. Birds have wings. Andru is a robot. A robot is a machine. We are not aiming directly at inference or logical thinking here. We want rather to increase the scope of self-referential AI conversations, so that the AI can discuss classes and categories of entities in the world. If people ask the AI what it is, and it responds that it is a robot and that a robot is a machine, we want the conversation to flow unimpeded and naturally in any direction that occurs to man or machine. We have already built in the underlying capabilities such as the usage of articles like a or the, and the usage of verbs of being. Teaching the AI how to use am or is or are was a major problem that we worried about solving during quite a few years of anticipation of encountering an impassable or at least difficult roadblock on our AGI Roadmap. Now we regard introducing Is-a functionality not so much as an insurmountable ordeal as an enjoyable challenge that will vastly expand the self-referential wherewithal of the incipient AI. Arthur -- http://robots.net/person/AI4U/diary/22.html --- 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/?; 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
[agi] The Collective Brain
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-20utm_campaign=newsletter_weeklyutm_medium=email Good lecture worth looking at about how trade - exchange of both goods and ideas - has fostered civilisation. Near the end introduces a v. important idea - the collective brain. In other words, our apparently individual intelligence is actually a collective intelligence. Nobody he points out actually knows how to make a computer mouse, although that may seem counterintuitive - it's an immensely complex piece of equipment, simple as it may appear, that engages the collective, interdependent intelligence and productive efforts of vast numbers of people. When you start thinking like that, you realise that there is v. little we know how to do, esp of an intellectual nature, individually, without the implicit and explicit collaboration of vast numbers of people and sectors of society. The fantasy of a superAGI machine that can grow individually without a vast society supporting it, is another one of the wild fantasies of AGI-ers and Singularitarians that violate truly basic laws of nature. Individual brains cannot flourish individually in the real world, only societies of brains (and bodies) can. (And of course computers can do absolutely nothing or in any way survive without their human masters - even if it may appear that way, if you don't look properly at their whole operation) --- 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] Seeking Is-a Functionality
Steve Richfield wrote maybe with percentages attached, so that people could announce that, say, I am 31% of the way to having an AGI. Not useful. AGI is still a hypothetical state and its true composition remains unknown. At best you can measure how much of an AGI plan is completed, but that's not necessarily equal to actually having an AGI. Of course, you could use a human brain as an upper bound, but that's still questionable, because--as I see it--most AGI designs arent' intended to be isomorphic and I don't know how good the brain is understood today that we can use it as an invariant measure. cu Jan --- 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
The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. It is not computable, even with infinite resources, for the kind of thing that was claimed it would do. (I believe that with a governance program it might actually be programmable) but it could not be used to predict (or compute the probability of) a subsequent string given some prefix string. Not only is the method impractical it is theoretically inane. My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is nothing in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove it. 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
I am not going in circles. I probably should not express myself in replies. I made a lot of mistakes getting to the conclusion that I got to, and I am a little uncertain as to whether the construction of the diagonal set actually means that there would be uncountable sets for this particular example, but that, for example, has nothing to do with anything that you said. Jim Bromer On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, *sigh* My response to that would just be to repeat certain questions I already asked you... I guess we should give it up after all. The best I can understand you is to assume that you simply don't understand the relevant mathematical constructions, and you've reached pretty much the same point with me. I'd continue in private if you're interested, but we should probably stop going in circles on a public list. --Abram On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. It is not computable, even with infinite resources, for the kind of thing that was claimed it would do. (I believe that with a governance program it might actually be programmable) but it could not be used to predict (or compute the probability of) a subsequent string given some prefix string. Not only is the method impractical it is theoretically inane. My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is nothing in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove it. 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 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] The Collective Brain
No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea. It's saying a lot more than the individual brain is embedded in society, much more like interdependently functioning with society - that you can't say do maths or art or any subject, or produce products or perform most of our activities except as part of a whole culture and society. Did you watch the talk? My Googlings show that this does seem to be a distinctive formulation by Ridley. The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here - show me how much of these discussions if anything at all raises the social dimension (i.e society of robots dimension) - considers what I am suggesting is the truth that you will not be able to have an independent AGI system without a society of such systems. If the collective brain idea were established culturally, AGI-ers would not talk as naively as they do. Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? Which brains? The only real AGI brains are those of living systems - animals and humans - living in the real world. All machines to date are only extensions of humans not living systems - though I'm not sure how many AGI-ers truly realise this. And all those systems can and do only function in societies. Why? Well, when you or y'all ever get around to dealing with AGI/creative problems you will realise why. The risk of failure and injury when dealing with the creative problems of the real world is so great that you need a social network a) to support you and b) by virtue of a collective, to increase the chances of at least some individuals successfully reaching difficult goals. Also, social division of labour massively amplifies the productive power of the individual. Plus you get sexual benefits. -- From: Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:25 PM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] The Collective Brain Mike Tintner wrote Near the end introduces a v. important idea - the collective brain. In other words, our apparently individual intelligence is actually a collective intelligence. That individuals are embedded into social networks of specialization and exchange, care etc. is already known both in sociology and economics, probably in philosophy and social psychology, too. and productive efforts of vast numbers of people. Already known to economists. The fantasy of a superAGI machine that can grow individually without a vast society supporting it, is another one of the wild fantasies of AGI-ers and Singularitarians that violate truly basic laws of nature. AGIers and Singularitarians say so? Individual brains cannot flourish individually in the real world, only societies of brains (and bodies) can. What kind of brains? What kind of societies? And why? --- 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] The Collective Brain
Ah the collective brain is saying something else as well - wh. is another
reason why I was hoping to get a discussion. It's exemplified in the example
of the mouse.
Actually, Ridley is saying, the complete knowledge to build a mouse does not
reside in any individual brain, or indeed by extension in any group of
individual brains. That complete knowledge only effectively comes into
being when you get all those brains along with all their relevant
technologies and libraries, working together.
Hence one talks of a collective brain, which is of course a (useful)
fiction. There is no such brain and nor is there any complete locatable
store of knowledge to perform the great majority of our activities. They are
the result of societies of individuals working together.
And that - although no doubt I'm not expressing it well at all - is a rather
magical idea and magical reality.
{Note this is something different from but loosely related to the crude,
rather atavistic idea beloved by AGI-ers that the internet will somehow
magically come alive and acquire an individual brain of its own]
---
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] The Collective Brain
Mike Tintner wrote No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea. Just a way of looking at social support networks. Even social philosophers centuries ago had similar ideas--they were lacking our technical understanding and used analogies from biology (organicism) instead. more like interdependently functioning with society As I said it's long known to economists and sociologists. There's even an African proverb pointing at this: It takes a village to raise a child. System researcher investigate those interdependencies since decades. Did you watch the talk? No flash here. I just answer on what you're writing. The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here We talked about the social dimensions some times. It's not the most important topic around here, but that doesn't mean we're all ignorant. In case you haven't noticed I'm not building an AGI, I'm interested in the stuff around, e.g., tests, implementation strategies etc. by the means of social simulation. Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? Which brains? The only real AGI brains are those of living systems A for Artificial. Living systems don't qualify for A. My question was about certain attributes of brains (whether natural or artificial). Societies are constrained by their members' capacities. A higher individual capacity can lead to different dependencies and new ways groups and societies are working. --- 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] The Collective Brain
You partly illustrate my point - you talk of artificial brains as if they actually exist - there aren't any; there are only glorified, extremely complex calculators/computer programs - extensions/augmentations of individual faculties of human brains. To obviously exaggerate, it's somewhat as if you were to talk of cameras as brains. By implicitly pretending that artificial brains exist - in the form of computer programs - you (and most AGI-ers), deflect attention away from all the unsolved dimensions of what is required for an independent brain-cum-living system, natural or artificial. One of those dimensions is a society of brains/systems. Another is a body. And there are more., none of wh. are incorporated in computer programs - they only represent one dimension of what is needed for a brain. Yes you may know these things some times as you say, but most of the time they're forgotten. -- From: Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:56 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] The Collective Brain Mike Tintner wrote No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea. Just a way of looking at social support networks. Even social philosophers centuries ago had similar ideas--they were lacking our technical understanding and used analogies from biology (organicism) instead. more like interdependently functioning with society As I said it's long known to economists and sociologists. There's even an African proverb pointing at this: It takes a village to raise a child. System researcher investigate those interdependencies since decades. Did you watch the talk? No flash here. I just answer on what you're writing. The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here We talked about the social dimensions some times. It's not the most important topic around here, but that doesn't mean we're all ignorant. In case you haven't noticed I'm not building an AGI, I'm interested in the stuff around, e.g., tests, implementation strategies etc. by the means of social simulation. Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? Which brains? The only real AGI brains are those of living systems A for Artificial. Living systems don't qualify for A. My question was about certain attributes of brains (whether natural or artificial). Societies are constrained by their members' capacities. A higher individual capacity can lead to different dependencies and new ways groups and societies are working. --- 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/?; 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] The Collective Brain
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 02:25 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: By implicitly pretending that artificial brains exist - in the form of computer programs - you (and most AGI-ers), deflect attention away from all the unsolved dimensions of what is required for an independent brain-cum-living system, I for one would like to see this brain-cum living system. It's erotic intelligence would be astronomical! natural or artificial. One of those dimensions is a society of brains/systems. Another is a body. And there are more., none of wh. are incorporated in computer programs - they only represent one dimension of what is needed for a brain. -- From: Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:56 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] The Collective Brain Mike Tintner wrote No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea. Just a way of looking at social support networks. Even social philosophers centuries ago had similar ideas--they were lacking our technical understanding and used analogies from biology (organicism) instead. more like interdependently functioning with society As I said it's long known to economists and sociologists. There's even an African proverb pointing at this: It takes a village to raise a child. System researcher investigate those interdependencies since decades. Did you watch the talk? No flash here. I just answer on what you're writing. The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here We talked about the social dimensions some times. It's not the most important topic around here, but that doesn't mean we're all ignorant. In case you haven't noticed I'm not building an AGI, I'm interested in the stuff around, e.g., tests, implementation strategies etc. by the means of social simulation. Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? Which brains? The only real AGI brains are those of living systems A for Artificial. Living systems don't qualify for A. My question was about certain attributes of brains (whether natural or artificial). Societies are constrained by their members' capacities. A higher individual capacity can lead to different dependencies and new ways groups and societies are working. --- 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/?; 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/?; 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] The Collective Brain
The most powerful concept in the universe is working together. If atoms didn't attract and repel each other, then we'd have a universe where nothing ever happened. So, Collective Brain is a subset of the collective intelligence of the universe. On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 02:25 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: You partly illustrate my point - you talk of artificial brains as if they actually exist - there aren't any; there are only glorified, extremely complex calculators/computer programs - extensions/augmentations of individual faculties of human brains. To obviously exaggerate, it's somewhat as if you were to talk of cameras as brains. By implicitly pretending that artificial brains exist - in the form of computer programs - you (and most AGI-ers), deflect attention away from all the unsolved dimensions of what is required for an independent brain-cum-living system, natural or artificial. One of those dimensions is a society of brains/systems. Another is a body. And there are more., none of wh. are incorporated in computer programs - they only represent one dimension of what is needed for a brain. Yes you may know these things some times as you say, but most of the time they're forgotten. -- From: Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:56 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] The Collective Brain Mike Tintner wrote No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea. Just a way of looking at social support networks. Even social philosophers centuries ago had similar ideas--they were lacking our technical understanding and used analogies from biology (organicism) instead. more like interdependently functioning with society As I said it's long known to economists and sociologists. There's even an African proverb pointing at this: It takes a village to raise a child. System researcher investigate those interdependencies since decades. Did you watch the talk? No flash here. I just answer on what you're writing. The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here We talked about the social dimensions some times. It's not the most important topic around here, but that doesn't mean we're all ignorant. In case you haven't noticed I'm not building an AGI, I'm interested in the stuff around, e.g., tests, implementation strategies etc. by the means of social simulation. Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? Which brains? The only real AGI brains are those of living systems A for Artificial. Living systems don't qualify for A. My question was about certain attributes of brains (whether natural or artificial). Societies are constrained by their members' capacities. A higher individual capacity can lead to different dependencies and new ways groups and societies are working. --- 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/?; 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/?; 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] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that people figure it out. The question is how to do that. We know that it is possible. For example, I could write a chess program that I could not win against. I could write the program in such a way that it learns to improve its game by playing against itself or other opponents. I could write it in such a way that initially does not know the rules for chess, but instead learns the rules by being given examples of legal and illegal moves. What we have not yet been able to do is scale this type of learning and problem solving up to general, human level intelligence. I believe it is possible, but it will require lots of training data and lots of computing power. It is not something you could do on a PC, and it won't be cheap. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the computer's or any agent'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 alternative way of structuring a computer's thinking, which incl., among other things, not giving it a method/ process of solution, but making it rather than a human programmer do the real problemsolving. More of that another time. From: Matt Mahoney Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:38 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Creativity is the good feeling you get when you discover a clever solution to a hard problem without knowing the process you used to discover it. I think a computer could do that. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:08:28 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Yes that's what people do, but it's not what programmed computers do. The useful formulation that emerges here is: narrow AI (and in fact all rational) problems have *a method of solution* (to be equated with general method) - and are programmable (a program is a method of solution) AGI (and in fact all creative) problems do NOT have *a method of solution* (in the general sense) - rather a one.off *way of solving the problem* has to be improvised each time. AGI/creative problems do not in fact have a method of solution, period. There is no (general) method of solving either the toy box or the build-a-rock-wall problem - one essential feature which makes them AGI. You can learn, as you indicate, from *parts* of any given AGI/creative solution, and apply the lessons to future problems - and indeed with practice, should improve at solving any given kind of AGI/creative problem. But you can never apply a *whole* solution/way to further problems. P.S. One should add that in terms of computers, we are talking here of *complete, step-by-step* methods of solution. From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:09 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI And are you happy with: AGI is about devising *one-off* methods ofproblemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot bere-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 be generalized and where past solutions can be varied and reused is a detail of how intelligence works that is likely to be universal. vs narrow AI is about applying pre-existing*general* methods of problemsolving (applicable to whole classes ofproblems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests ofAGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This isAGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintendedconsequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being ableto come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just ashumans are able to do). On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Whaddya mean by solve the problem of how to solve problems? Develop a universal approach to solving any problem? Or find a method of solving a class of problems? Or what? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI However, I see that there are no validdefinitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these
