Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[Mike Tintner]

Further pretty fab advanced stuff on

http://www.botjunkie.com/

See esp ball handling skills and ATHLETE Nasa robot


From: John G. Rose 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:06 AM
To: agi 
Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao


Aww, so cute.

 

I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory 
information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting 
personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network.

 

So cuddly!

 

And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over 
the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most 
for access.

 

Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)

 

John

 

From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 



 

An unusually sophisticated (& somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expresses-and-detects-emotions.html

  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

RE: [agi] Nao Nao

[John G. Rose]

Aww, so cute.

 

I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed
robo-network.

 

So cuddly!

 

And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in
over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the
most for access.

 

Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)

 

John

 

From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 



 

An unusually sophisticated (& somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid:

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expres
ses-and-detects-emotions.html


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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts

[Jim Bromer]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
> >
> >  how would these diverse examples
> > be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of
> > knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the
> > most common examples that the person is familiar with.
>
> This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think
> that this "subsystem" would take up millions of lines of code either. It's
> just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure
> IMO.
>
> John
>


Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing
prototypes using familiar mathematical structures.  I think the structure
has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical.  For
instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you
are capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something.  This
means that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own
programming.  While the idea in this example would be associated with a
fairly strong notion of meaning, since you cannot accurately understand the
full consequences of the change it would be somewhat vague at first.  (It
could be a very precise idea capable of having strong effect, but the
details of those effects would not be known until the change had
progressed.)

I think the more important question is how does a general concept be
interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas.  Actually this is
not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated
conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved?
Jim



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[agi] Nao Nao

[Mike Tintner]

An unusually sophisticated (& somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expresses-and-detects-emotions.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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

RE: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[John G. Rose]

Hmm... Shall we coin this the Tinter Contrarian Pattern? 

 

Or anti-pattern :)

 

John

 

From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] 
I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion
if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm
not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a
pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because
it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it
right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived
notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason,
any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong. 

On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, "John G. Rose"  wrote:

Actually this is quite critical.

 

Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the
supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the
mind processes it.

 

It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I
would go for though...

 

John

 

From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM


To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

 

You're waffling.

 

You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you.

 

Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any
basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two.

 

You haven't identified any basic visual units  - you don't have any. Do you?
Yes/no. 

 

No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through
and through.

 

 

 

From: David Jones   

Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM

To: agi   

Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

 

Mike,

We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat
previous arguments to you.

You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts
and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example
problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot
solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain
methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions?

The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a
recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite
funny. 

Dave

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner 
wrote:

Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as
if everything was made up of matter

 

And "matter" is... ?  Huh?

 

You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you
will pay a heavy price in lost time.

 

What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units"  wh. you are
claiming to exist?  

 

You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty
fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be
expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern
for "chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to
understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform*
schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs.

 

You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had
never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming
that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you
haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these
basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a
few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist.

 

Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call
"fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the
world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a
freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the
box/brick/"fundamental unit".

 

From: David Jones   

Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM

To: agi   

Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

 

Mike,

I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to
make sure these problems are addressed. 

See more comments below.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner 
wrote:

1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear
why your approach is one and not the other


I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101.
I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle
the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a
change in design.
 

 

2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it -  vast nos. of progs. claim they
can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI
learning?


The difference is in what you can or can't learn

RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[John G. Rose]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
> 
> The question for me is not what the
> smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range
> and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse
examples
> be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of
> knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the
> most common examples that the person is familiar with.

This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think
that this "subsystem" would take up millions of lines of code either. It's
just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure
IMO.

John





---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Ben Goertzel]

I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in a
panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI...

ben g

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, David Jones  wrote:

> I've decided to go. I was wondering if anyone else here is.
>
> Dave
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[David Jones]

I've decided to go. I was wondering if anyone else here is.

Dave



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

Ben,

Comments below.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:

>
>
>> The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be
>> proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit
>> the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the
>> system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to
>> learn from perceptual data.
>>
>
>
> That is not a proof, of course.  It could be that given a general
> architecture, and inputs with certain statistical properties, the same
> internal structures inevitably self-organize
>
>
You're right, I should organize details and evidence that the human brain
has a lot of its processing algorithms built in.

Another example of this innate ability to process inputs the right way is
the fact that many language acquisition researchers believe that children
have a built-in hypothesis space that they use when learning language (see
generativism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition).

It is likely not enough to just give it all the data it needs and let it
guess till it fines a good answer. The hypothesis space is likely too large.




So I'm curious
>
> -- what are the specific pattern-recognition modules that you will put into
> your system, and how will you arrange them hierarchically?
>

Well, the first pattern-recognition modules are the ones for inferring scene
and object structures and properties from visual/lidar data. I can't really
be specific because

The next set of pattern-recognition modules would be for inferring
relationships such as object whole-to-part relationships and their other
behavioral relationships. Basically, algorithms for inferring a sparse or
dense models of objects. Again, it is quite hard to be specific about
algorithms. There is a lot of detailed analysis that I have yet to do for
each type of problem and how the whole is broken down into these types of
relationships. Again, as you can see, I think the problem can be broken down
into generic components that can be reasoned about.

As for hierarchical design... I haven't decided yet. It really depends on
the purpose of the hierarchy and its function. That's why in the paper I
stress function before design.





>
> -- how will you handle feedback connections (top-down) among the modules?
>


That's a very good question. I haven't decided yet really because I haven't
fully worked out all the pieces of the design and how they must interact to
solve problems. I'd need to analyze specific requirements and what problems
such feedback is required to solve.

I guess one example of feedback might be the interpretation of ambiguous
visual input, such as single images from a less than ideal camera and scene
setup. Such problems require feedback from knowledge. I see this as a
separate visual processing system from the visual learning system that I
mentioned in the paper. This is because the system I designed is for
learning from less ambiguous input. Once it has gained sufficient knowledge
this way, more ambiguous input would be possible to process and understand
with confidence.

So, clearly much still has to be worked out about the design. But, my
working assumption is that these things can be broken down analytically and
solved. The alternative is to just hope that a similar-to-the-brain model is
going to work. I just don't think we can reasonably hope that such a model
will work, be effective and be efficient. I think it is just too hard to
guess at the right structure that will solve the problems without actually
showing how it solves all the problems we want to apply it to.
*
I really think it is very important for the functional requirements to
create the design.* Regardless of the approach, we need to understand why
the solutions we create solve the problems we want to solve. And if we can't
show that they do solve them or how they solve them, then the odds are
against us that they will work. That's my opinion.

If one could show how deep learning models, for example, really do solve all
the problems we want to solve, then I would be willing to use them. I just
don't see it though. I doesn't seem that the solution was generated by the
problem. It seems more that the solution was generated based on its
similarity to the brain. I just can't accept the risk that such approaches
won't work.

Since I don't think reverse engineering the brain makes sense either. My
only alternative to those two approaches seems to be the one I'm taking.

Dave



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Ben Goertzel]

IMO the hardest part is not any particular part, but rather integration:
getting all the parts to work together in a scalable, adaptive way...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for
> AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the
> hardest part...
>
> Which is?
>
>
>  *From:* Ben Goertzel 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM
> *To:* agi 
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
>
>>  Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge
>> is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage
>>
>> Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent
>> entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially
>> prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously
>> dependent on human programmers?
>>
>
> I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the
> world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional
> senses not available to humans)
>
> You misunderstood my statement.  I think that vision and the
> vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a
> moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part...
>
>
>
>>
>> Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all
>> their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious
>> exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them,
>> and they have visual forms -  equations and logic have visual form and use
>> visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs.
>>
>> Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do,
>> that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human
>> assistance to substitute for that processing?
>>
>>   *agi* | Archives 
>>  | 
>> ModifyYour Subscription
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Goertzel, PhD
> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
> CTO, Genescient Corp
> Vice Chairman, Humanity+
> Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
> External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
> b...@goertzel.org
>
> "I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
> to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
> charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky
>
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re : [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Bruno Frandemiche]

sorry,i think all the cognition are base on a private language of models base 
on 
topolical geometrical dynamic in our web mental
therefore the mecanism of vision serve at vision&mental-vision
bruno




De : Mike Tintner 
À : agi 
Envoyé le : Lun 9 août 2010, 18h 48min 49s
Objet : Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, 
but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest 
part...

Which is?
 
 
From: Ben Goertzel 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2



On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

Ben:I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is *such* 
a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage
>
>Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent 
>entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially 
>prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously 
>dependent 
>on human programmers?

I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the 
world 
in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not 
available to humans)

You misunderstood my statement.  I think that vision and the vision-cognition 
bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of 
the 
problem, and not the hardest part...

 

>
>Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their 
>internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions 
>like 
>sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have 
>visual 
>forms -  equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as 
>well as visual numerical signs. 
>
> 
>Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, 
>that do 
>NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance 
>to 
>substitute for that processing?
> 
>agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  


-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to 
give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming 
thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky


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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Ian Parker]

Point about DESTIN, it has no preconceived assumptions. Some of
the entities might be chairs, but it will not have been specifically told
about a chair.


  - Ian Parker

On 9 August 2010 12:50, Jim Bromer  wrote:

> The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind
> of object is that kind of object.  I believe that the problem must be a
> problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing
> with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program.  A
> young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that
> the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs.  In a few cases,
> after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like
> seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood)
> he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or
> not.  And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a
> while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair).  The question for me is
> not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent
> the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse
> examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of
> knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the
> most common examples that the person is familiar with.
> Jim Bromer
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM, John G. Rose wrote:
>
>>  Actually this is quite critical.
>>
>>
>>
>> Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the
>> supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the
>> mind processes it.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, 
but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest 
part...

Which is?


From: Ben Goertzel 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2





On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

  Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is 
*such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage

  Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent 
entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially 
prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent 
on human programmers?

I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the 
world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional 
senses not available to humans)

You misunderstood my statement.  I think that vision and the vision-cognition 
bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of 
the problem, and not the hardest part...

 

  Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their 
internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like 
sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have 
visual forms -  equations and logic have visual form and use visual 
ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. 

  Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that 
do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human 
assistance to substitute for that processing?

agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  




-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to 
give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming 
thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky


  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Ben Goertzel]

>
> The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be
> proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit
> the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the
> system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to
> learn from perceptual data.
>


That is not a proof, of course.  It could be that given a general
architecture, and inputs with certain statistical properties, the same
internal structures inevitably self-organize



>
> I think a more deliberate approach would be more effective because we can
> understand why it does what it does, how it does it, and why its not working
> if it doesn't work. With such deliberate approaches, it is much more clear
> how to proceed and to reuse knowledge in many complementary ways. This is
> what I meant by "emergence".



I understand the general concept.  I am reminded a bit of Poggio's
hierarchical visual cortex simulations -- which do attempt to emulate the
human brain's specific processing, on a neuronal cluster and inter-cluster
connectivity level

However, Poggio hasn't yet solved the problem of making this kind of
deliberately-engineered hierarchical vision network incorporate cognition==>
perception feedback.  At this stage it seems basically a feedforward
system.

So I'm curious

-- what are the specific pattern-recognition modules that you will put into
your system, and how will you arrange them hierarchically?

-- how will you handle feedback connections (top-down) among the modules?

thx
ben



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Ben Goertzel]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is
> *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage
>
> Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent
> entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially
> prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously
> dependent on human programmers?
>

I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the
world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional
senses not available to humans)

You misunderstood my statement.  I think that vision and the
vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a
moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part...



>
> Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all
> their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious
> exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them,
> and they have visual forms -  equations and logic have visual form and use
> visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs.
>
> Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do,
> that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human
> assistance to substitute for that processing?
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is 
*such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage

Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent 
entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially 
prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent 
on human programmers?

Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their 
internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like 
sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have 
visual forms -  equations and logic have visual form and use visual 
ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. 

Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do 
NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance 
to substitute for that processing?



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

Thanks Ben,

I think the biggest difference with the way I approach it is to be
deliberate in how the system solves specific kinds of problems. I haven't
gone into that in detail yet though.

For example, Itamar seems to want to give the AI the basic building blocks
that make up spaciotemporal dependencies as a sort of bag of features and
just let a neural-net-like structure find the patterns. If that is not
accurate, please correct me. I am very skeptical of such approaches because
there is no guarantee at all that the system will properly represent the
relationships and structure of the data. It seems just hopeful to me that
such a system would get it right out of the vast number of possible results
it could accidental arrive at.

The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be
proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit
the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the
system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to
learn from perceptual data.

I think a more deliberate approach would be more effective because we can
understand why it does what it does, how it does it, and why its not working
if it doesn't work. With such deliberate approaches, it is much more clear
how to proceed and to reuse knowledge in many complementary ways. This is
what I meant by "emergence".

I propose a more deliberate approach that knows exactly why problems can be
solved a certain way and how the system is likely to solve them.

I'm suggesting to represent the spaciotemporal relationships deliberately
and explicitly. Then we can construct general algorithms to solve problems
explicitly, yet generally.

Regarding computer vision not being that important... Don't you think that
because knowledge is so essential and manual input is inneffective,
perception-based acquisition of knowledge is a very serious barrier to AGI?
It seems to me that the solutions to AGI problems being constructed are not
using knowledge gained from simulated perception effectively. OpenCog's
natural language processing for example, seems to use very very little
knowledge that would be gathered from visual perception. As far as I
remember, it mostly uses things that are learned from other sources. To me,
it doesn't make sense to spend so much time debugging and developing such
solutions, when a better and more general approach to language understanding
would use a lot of knowledge.

Those are the sorts of things I feel are new to this approach.

Thanks Again,

Dave

PS: I'm planning to go to the Singularity Summit :) Last minute. Hope to see
you there.


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I read the essay
>
> I think it summarizes well some of the key issues involving the bridge
> between perception and cognition, and the hierarchical decomposition of
> natural concepts
>
> I find the ideas very harmonious with those of Jeff Hawkins, Itamar Arel,
> and other researchers focused on hierarchical deep learning approaches to
> vision with longer-term AGI ambitions
>
> I'm not sure there are any dramatic new ideas in the essay.  Do you think
> there are?
>
> My own view is that these ideas are basically right, but handle only a
> modest percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like
> AGI   I.e. I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition
> bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial
> percentage...
>
>
> -- Ben G
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones  wrote:
>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share
>> and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it
>> in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in
>> progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment,
>> positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be
>> adding to and editing it over the next few days.
>>
>> I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave
>>   *agi* | Archives 
>>  | 
>> ModifyYour Subscription
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Goertzel, PhD
> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
> CTO, Genescient Corp
> Vice Chairman, Humanity+
> Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
> External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
> b...@goertzel.org
>
> "I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
> to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
> charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> Modify

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

Mike,

The concept of chair is not an isolated concept by itself. It is also not
recognized using a single simple "schema". People have seen many chair
instances in their lives and are able to learn their features and
affordances. We are able to compare their features and structures.

So, when we see another chair, we are not just comparing a single
constructed schema. We compare the features to features we've seen before,
we analyze the uses of the structures and how similar they are to other
objects we've seen before. What might it be used for? Put just about
anything with a concave shape on the floor with 3 or four legs and you can
call it a chair. LOL. You see, there are physical features and patterns that
are do make it possible to consider that maybe a new object might be a
chair, but it is by no means some schema set in stone. We just fine
something that works well. And I've given you plenty of ways to think about
it that would suggest ways of solving the problem that would work well.

So, to say that I must create this perfect schema to prove that AGI is
possible is dumb and unreasonable. I can get you a close description of a
"schema" that would recognize it. But I certainly cannot write the program
out for you. It involves knowledge, which involves lots of supporting
algorithms to construct and use. It seems that no matter how much detail I
give you, you can't read between the lines.

So, give it a rest mike. It is clearly possible to do. How exactly it is
done is yet to be determined. This is why I say in my paper it is important
to start with raw data, because it is unrealistic and unrepresentative to
construct solutions that don't use knowledge and try to solve the problem
without the right knowledge.

Human beings do not recognize chairs in a vacuum. A lot of knowledge and
experience goes into it. Some of the things on your google example images
would not be recognized as chairs to people if given out of context. So, to
force AI to recognize them all with 100% accuracy is unreasonable. That's
why I don't like arguing with you. You are unreasonable and will never admit
that you're wrong.

Dave


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  You're somewhat confused here (and now that you're answering, one can see
> why & make progress).
>
> "The use of" or "to use" a chair, involves a physical class of forms -
> bottoms or other objects have to make physical contact with - sit on - the
> chair/fridge etc. Everything we're talking about is physical and can only be
> conceived of physically and, relative to our discussion, visually.
>
> And you clearly don't see that you have still not identified any kind of
> physical schema/ framework for either "chair" or "sitting"  or anything
> else.
>
> And that is what a visual AGI must do - use some kind of physical schema -
> in order to recognize an object as a "chair" or the action of an object as
> "sitting."
>
> [Note I use "schema"/"framework" rather than "pattern" - the former are
> more general terms, the latter much more specific (& mathematical).  I
> suspect that you may be  using "pattern" here confusedly in the
> popular/nonmathematical sense wh. is more akin to "schema." But you and all
> other AGI-ers actually deal computationally in math. patterns, and it is
> that sense that I am addressing].
>
> When you claim that there is a pattern to "chair[s]" you are making a
> mathematical claim, - and it is completely indefensible. (Show me otherwise,
> John). And that is perhaps the most central issue of AGI. So it is worth
> consideration.
>
> You also seem to be confused about my position - wh. BTW as I've pointed
> out is backed by at least one significant AGI-er. I am NOT suggesting
> conceptualisation/object recognition "cannot" be done -  just not done by
> your and others' 100%-record-of-failure mathematical methods. (I'm almost
> tempted to say a "blind idiot could see that" [image: Smile emoticon] ).**
>
> I'm suggesting that the brain uses fluid schemas to recognize objects (and
> concepts) - fluidly stretchable (and editable) schemas -  when we say "by no
> stretch of the imagination can that be recognized/classify as a "chair." " -
> we are unconsciously indicating the underlying process of object recognition
> - one of "stretching" image schemas to match incoming objects.
>
> If you want an inspirational image of a fluid schema, think "strings" - as
> in string theory - those oscillating strings which are supposed to be
> capable of making any shape of particle or object. (I'm too ignorant to know
> how precisely the brain's image schemas and nature's theoretical string
> schemas can be aligned - comments welcome -  but there seems to be a loose
> aptness and even beauty in the comparison. It would be rather wonderful if
> mind and matter are conceived/work on similar principles).
>
> If you want both evidence and a concrete example of how fluid and
> stretchable the brain's schemas can be - think of what the schema must 

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

You're somewhat confused here (and now that you're answering, one can see why & 
make progress).

"The use of" or "to use" a chair, involves a physical class of forms - bottoms 
or other objects have to make physical contact with - sit on - the chair/fridge 
etc. Everything we're talking about is physical and can only be conceived of 
physically and, relative to our discussion, visually.

And you clearly don't see that you have still not identified any kind of 
physical schema/ framework for either "chair" or "sitting"  or anything else.  

And that is what a visual AGI must do - use some kind of physical schema - in 
order to recognize an object as a "chair" or the action of an object as 
"sitting."

[Note I use "schema"/"framework" rather than "pattern" - the former are more 
general terms, the latter much more specific (& mathematical).  I suspect that 
you may be  using "pattern" here confusedly in the popular/nonmathematical 
sense wh. is more akin to "schema." But you and all other AGI-ers actually deal 
computationally in math. patterns, and it is that sense that I am addressing].

When you claim that there is a pattern to "chair[s]" you are making a 
mathematical claim, - and it is completely indefensible. (Show me otherwise, 
John). And that is perhaps the most central issue of AGI. So it is worth 
consideration.

You also seem to be confused about my position - wh. BTW as I've pointed out is 
backed by at least one significant AGI-er. I am NOT suggesting 
conceptualisation/object recognition "cannot" be done -  just not done by your 
and others' 100%-record-of-failure mathematical methods. (I'm almost tempted to 
say a "blind idiot could see that"  ).**

I'm suggesting that the brain uses fluid schemas to recognize objects (and 
concepts) - fluidly stretchable (and editable) schemas -  when we say "by no 
stretch of the imagination can that be recognized/classify as a "chair." " - we 
are unconsciously indicating the underlying process of object recognition - one 
of "stretching" image schemas to match incoming objects.

If you want an inspirational image of a fluid schema, think "strings" - as in 
string theory - those oscillating strings which are supposed to be capable of 
making any shape of particle or object. (I'm too ignorant to know how precisely 
the brain's image schemas and nature's theoretical string schemas can be 
aligned - comments welcome -  but there seems to be a loose aptness and even 
beauty in the comparison. It would be rather wonderful if mind and matter are 
conceived/work on similar principles).

If you want both evidence and a concrete example of how fluid and stretchable 
the brain's schemas can be - think of what the schema must be like for "one" or 
"1". Well, something like a line obviously, But what's not so obvious - 
although undeniable - is how stretchable and fluid that line must be in order 
to recognize diverse objects - as diverse as "one" octopus, "one" cactus",  
"one "mountain. See foto below.  The brain can stretch a line outwards to 
encompass any form of object in the universe - or conversely, squeeze/stretch 
any object inwards to form a "1". All those objects in the foto can be 
squeezed/stretched into that "one" on the top left. 

Now is anyone here going to have the gall to tell me that process of object 
recognition is mathematical?

But just as strings are - or could be - central to matter and physics; so are 
fluid schemas central to intelligence - and especially to concepts.

**Correction - a blind idiot *could* see - by touch - that the diverse forms of 
one octopus/flower etc  could not be reduced to a line by any mathematical 
process.

P.S. When I say that maths cannot deal with fluid schemas and object 
recognition, one should perhaps amend that - it may be that no existing form of 
maths. wh. deals entirely in "set forms" and patterns can, but that a creative 
version of maths, dealing in "free forms" and patchworks, could.

P.P.S. "String" - the concept - itself involves an extremely fluid schema - is 
a variation, in fact, of the schema of "one/1" - and must embrace many diverse 
forms that strings may be shaped into.


 
 


From: David Jones 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:13 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


Mike, 

Quoting a previous email:

QUOTE

In fact, the "chair" patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. 
The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses 
probably are, and what most common effective uses are.

So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose 
most likely use is for sitting based on experience.

END QUOTE




Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out 
there camping, you can sit on it. I could say "sit on that fridge couch over 
there". The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to call 
it a couch.  


But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Ben Goertzel]

Hi David,

I read the essay

I think it summarizes well some of the key issues involving the bridge
between perception and cognition, and the hierarchical decomposition of
natural concepts

I find the ideas very harmonious with those of Jeff Hawkins, Itamar Arel,
and other researchers focused on hierarchical deep learning approaches to
vision with longer-term AGI ambitions

I'm not sure there are any dramatic new ideas in the essay.  Do you think
there are?

My own view is that these ideas are basically right, but handle only a
modest percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like
AGI   I.e. I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition
bridge is *such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial
percentage...


-- Ben G

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones  wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share
> and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it
> in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in
> progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment,
> positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be
> adding to and editing it over the next few days.
>
> I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Jim Bromer]

Mike Tintner  wrote:

>  How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only
> seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms?
>

I do not reckon that it will work for an infant or anyone (or anything) who
(or that) has only seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms.  I
haven't looked at your photos, but I did indicate that learning has to be
able to advance with new kinds of objects of a kind.  My previous comment
specifically dealt with the problem of learning to recognize radically
different instances of the kind.

There was once a time when it was thought that domain-specific AI, using
general methods of reasoning would be more feasible than general AI.  This
optimism was not borne out by experiment.  The question is why not?  I
believe that domain specific AI needs to rely on so much general knowledge
(AGI) as a base, that until a certain level of success in AGI is achieved,
narrower domain specific AI will be limited to calculation-based reasoning
and the like (as in closed taxonomic AI or simple neural networks).

A similar situation occurred in space travel.  At the dawn of the space age
some people intuitively thought that traveling to the moon would be 2000
times more difficult than sending a space vehicle up a 100 miles (since it
was 2000 times further away) so if it took 10 years to get to the pont where
they could get a space capsule up 100 miles, it would take 2 years to
reach the moon.  It didn't work that way, because as the leading experts
realized, getting away from earth's gravity results in a significant and
geometric decrease in the force needed to continue.  Because this fact was
not intuitive to the naive critic it wasn't completely grasped by many
people until the first space vehicle escaped earth orbit a few years after
the first space shots.

I think a similar situation probably is at the center of the feasibility of
basic AGI.  As more and more examples are learned, the complications in
storing and accessing that information in a wise and intelligent manner
become more and more elusive.  But, for example, if domain specific
information is dependent on a certain level of general knowledge, then you
won't see domain specific AI really take off until that level of AGI becomes
feasible.  Why would this relationship occur?  Because each time you double
*all* knowledge (as is implied by a doubling of general knowledge) you have
a progressively more complicated load on the computer.  So to double that
general knowledge twice, you would have to create an AGI program that was
capable of dealing with four times as much complexity.  To double that
general knowledge again, you would have to create an AGI program that would
have to deal with 8 times the complexity as your first prototype.  Once you
get your AGI program to work at a certain level of complexity, then your
domain-specific AI program might start to take off and you would see the
kind of dazzling results which would make the critics more wary of
expressing their skepticism.

Jim Bromer

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only
> seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms?
>
> (You're effectively misreading the set of fotos -  altho. this needs making
> clear - a major point of the set is:  how will any concept/schema of chair,
> derived from any set of particular kinds of chairs, cope with a radically
> new kind of chair?  Just saying - "well let's analyse the chairs we have" -
> is not an answer. You can take it for granted that the new chair will have
> some feature[s]/form that constitutes a "radical departure" from existing
> ones. (as is amply illustrated by my set of fotos). And yet your - an AGI -
> mind can normally adapt and recognize the new object as a chair. ).
>
> *From:* Jim Bromer 
>  *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 12:50 PM
>  *To:* agi 
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
>   The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind
> of object is that kind of object.  I believe that the problem must be a
> problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing
> with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program.  A
> young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that
> the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs.  In a few cases,
> after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like
> seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood)
> he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or
> not.  And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a
> while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair).  The question for me is
> not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent
> the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse
> examples be 

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

Mike,

Quoting a previous email:

QUOTE

In fact, the "chair" patterns you refer to are not strictly physical
patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their
intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are.

So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects
whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience.

END QUOTE


Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out
there camping, you can sit on it. I could say "sit on that fridge couch over
there". The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to
call it a couch.

But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it's a fridge. So, when the object
has a more "common effective use", as I stated above, it is usually referred
to by that use. If something is most likely used for sitting by a single
person, then it is a chair. If its most common best use is something else,
like cooling food, you would call it a fridge.

So, maybe the pattern would be, if it has some features like a chair, like
possible arm rests, a soft bottom, cushions, legs, a back rest, etc. and you
can't see it being used as anything else, then maybe it's a chair. If
someone sits on it, it certainly is a chair, if you find it by searching for
chairs, its likely a chair. etc.

You see, chairs are not simply recognized by their physical structure. There
are multiple ways you can recognize it and it is certainly important to know
that it doesn't seem useful for another task.

The idea that chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes,
sizes and structures is just wrong.

Dave


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  Examples of nonphysical patterns?
>
>  *From:* David Jones 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
> *To:* agi 
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
> You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it
> must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be
> physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose
> unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no
> such restrictions.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
>
>>  John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways
>>
>> Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set
>> of fotos to Dave.
>>
>> (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there
>> are no such things as "non-physical patterns").
>>
>>
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

No you didn't. You're being evasive through and through.

You haven't answered the questions put to you in any shape or form other than 
"nonphysical" - and never will. Nor do you have any answer. Finis.


From: David Jones 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:51 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


I already stated these. read previous emails. 


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

  PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual 
AGI.?



  From: David Jones 
  Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
  To: agi 
  Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


  You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it 
must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? 
This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary 
restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such 
restrictions.

  Dave


  On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways

Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of 
fotos to Dave.

(And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there 
are no such things as "non-physical patterns").




agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription   

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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

Examples of nonphysical patterns?


From: David Jones 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it 
must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? 
This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary 
restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such 
restrictions.

Dave


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

  John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways

  Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of 
fotos to Dave.

  (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are 
no such things as "non-physical patterns").




  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

I already stated these. read previous emails.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual
> AGI.?
>
>
>  *From:* David Jones 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
> *To:* agi 
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
> You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it
> must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be
> physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose
> unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no
> such restrictions.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
>
>>  John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways
>>
>> Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set
>> of fotos to Dave.
>>
>> (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there
>> are no such things as "non-physical patterns").
>>
>>
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.?



From: David Jones 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it 
must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical? 
This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary 
restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such 
restrictions.

Dave


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

  John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways

  Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of 
fotos to Dave.

  (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are 
no such things as "non-physical patterns").




  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it
must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be
physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose
unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no
such restrictions.

Dave

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways
>
> Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of
> fotos to Dave.
>
> (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there
> are no such things as "non-physical patterns").
>
>



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only seen an 
example or two of the concept class-of-forms?

(You're effectively misreading the set of fotos -  altho. this needs making 
clear - a major point of the set is:  how will any concept/schema of chair, 
derived from any set of particular kinds of chairs, cope with a radically new 
kind of chair?  Just saying - "well let's analyse the chairs we have" - is not 
an answer. You can take it for granted that the new chair will have some 
feature[s]/form that constitutes a "radical departure" from existing ones. (as 
is amply illustrated by my set of fotos). And yet your - an AGI - mind can 
normally adapt and recognize the new object as a chair. ).

From: Jim Bromer 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:50 PM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind of object 
is that kind of object.  I believe that the problem must be a problem of 
complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing with 
complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program.  A young child 
first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that the furniture 
objects that he sits on are mostly chairs.  In a few cases, after seeing an odd 
object that is used as a chair for the first time (like seeing an odd outdoor 
chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood) he might not know that it 
is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or not.  And think of odd 
furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a while and then disappears 
(like the bean bag chair).  The question for me is not what the smallest pieces 
of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds 
of objects are, but how would these diverse examples be woven into highly 
compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed 
quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person 
is familiar with.
Jim Bromer


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM, John G. Rose  wrote:

  Actually this is quite critical.



  Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the 
supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the mind 
processes it.




  John

  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Jim Bromer]

The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind
of object is that kind of object.  I believe that the problem must be a
problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing
with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program.  A
young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that
the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs.  In a few cases,
after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like
seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood)
he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or
not.  And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a
while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair).  The question for me is
not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent
the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse
examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of
knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the
most common examples that the person is familiar with.
Jim Bromer

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM, John G. Rose wrote:

>  Actually this is quite critical.
>
>
>
> Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the
> supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the
> mind processes it.
>
>
>
> John
>



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

Dave,

You offer nothing to even attend to.

The questions completely unanswered by you are:

1. what basic visual units of analysis have you arrived at? (you say there are 
such things - you must have arrived at something, no?) - zero answer

2.what kind of physical/visual *pattern* informs our concept of "chair"? - zero 
answer. A "non-physical pattern" pace you is a non-existent entity/figment of 
your mind, (just as the "pattern of divine grace" is),  - and yet another 
non-answer.

You're supposed to be doing visual AGI - put up something visual in answer to 
the questions, or, I suggest, keep quiet.


From: David Jones 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:55 AM
To: agi 
Subject: Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion if 
mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm not sure 
that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a pattern that 
works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because it isn't 
physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it right, the 
discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived notions no 
matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason, any reason will 
do, to say I'm still wrong. 


  On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, "John G. Rose"  wrote:


  Actually this is quite critical.



  Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the 
supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the mind 
processes it.



  It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I 
would go for though...



  John



  From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
  Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM 


  To: agi
  Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2




  You're waffling.



  You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you.



  Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any 
basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two.



  You haven't identified any basic visual units  - you don't have any. Do you? 
Yes/no. 



  No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and 
through.







  From: David Jones 

  Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM

  To: agi 

  Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2



  Mike,

  We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat 
previous arguments to you.

  You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts 
and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems 
that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, 
doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who 
is really making wild assumptions?

  The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a recognizable 
pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. 

  Dave

  On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

  Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as 
if everything was made up of matter



  And "matter" is... ?  Huh?



  You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you 
will pay a heavy price in lost time.



  What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units"  wh. you are claiming 
to exist?  



  You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty 
fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be 
expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for 
"chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the 
basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable 
of being expressed either as patterns or programs.



  You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had 
never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that 
the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't 
actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units 
to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't 
be able to do it. They don't exist.



  Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call 
"fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world 
with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform 
designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/"fundamental unit".



  From: David Jones 

  Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM

  To: agi 

  Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2



  Mike,

  I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to 
make sure these problems are addressed. 

  See more comments below.

  On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

  1) You don'

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Mike Tintner]

John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways

Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of 
fotos to Dave.

(And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are 
no such things as "non-physical patterns").


From: John G. Rose 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:16 AM
To: agi 
Subject: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2


Actually this is quite critical.

 

Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the 
supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the mind 
processes it.

 

It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I 
would go for though...

 

John

 

From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

 

You're waffling.

 

You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you.

 

Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any basic 
units can be applied to them. Draw one or two.

 

You haven't identified any basic visual units  - you don't have any. Do you? 
Yes/no. 

 

No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and 
through.

 

 

 

From: David Jones 

Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM

To: agi 

Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

 

Mike,

We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous 
arguments to you.

You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts 
and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems 
that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, 
doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who 
is really making wild assumptions?

The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a recognizable 
pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. 

Dave

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if 
everything was made up of matter

 

And "matter" is... ?  Huh?

 

You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will 
pay a heavy price in lost time.

 

What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units"  wh. you are claiming 
to exist?  

 

You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental 
intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or 
indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for "chair" or 
"table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic 
nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of 
being expressed either as patterns or programs.

 

You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had 
never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that 
the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't 
actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units 
to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't 
be able to do it. They don't exist.

 

Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call 
"fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world 
with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform 
designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/"fundamental unit".

 

From: David Jones 

Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM

To: agi 

Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

 

Mike,

I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make 
sure these problems are addressed. 

See more comments below.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner  wrote:

1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear 
why your approach is one and not the other


I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I 
think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the 
vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in 
design.
 

   

  2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it -  vast nos. of progs. claim they 
can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI 
learning?


The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you can 
or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it needs to 
know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and analyze, it 
can reason about anything it needs to.
 

   

  3) "Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and 
handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes 
it general!"

   

  Wild assumption, unproven or at all dem

Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[David Jones]

I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion
if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm
not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a
pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because
it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it
right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived
notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason,
any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong.

On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, "John G. Rose"  wrote:

Actually this is quite critical.



Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the
supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the
mind processes it.



It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I
would go for though...



John



*From:* Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
*Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM


To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2



You're waffling.



You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you.



Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any
basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two.



You haven't identified any basic visual units  - you don't have any. Do you?
Yes/no.



No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through
and through.







*From:* David Jones 

*Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM

*To:* agi 

*Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2



Mike,

We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat
previous arguments to you.

You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts
and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example
problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot
solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain
methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions?

The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a
recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite
funny.

Dave

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner 
wrote:

Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as
if everything was made up of matter



And "matter" is... ?  Huh?



You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you
will pay a heavy price in lost time.



What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units"  wh. you are
claiming to exist?



You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty
fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be
expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern
for "chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to
understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform*
schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs.



You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had
never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming
that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you
haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these
basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a
few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist.



Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call
"fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the
world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a
freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the
box/brick/"fundamental unit".



*From:* David Jones 

*Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM

*To:* agi 

*Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2



Mike,

I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to
make sure these problems are addressed.

See more comments below.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner 
wrote:

1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear
why your approach is one and not the other


I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101.
I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle
the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a
change in design.




2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it -  vast nos. of progs. claim they
can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI
learning?


The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you
can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it
needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and
analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to.




3) "Breaking things down into generic compon

Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2

[Ian Parker]

What about DESTIN? Jim has talked about video. Could DESTIN be generalized
to 3 dimensions, or even n dimensions?


  - Ian Parker

On 9 August 2010 07:16, John G. Rose  wrote:

> Actually this is quite critical.
>
>
>
> Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the
> supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the
> mind processes it.
>
>
>
> It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I
> would go for though...
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM
> *To:* agi
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
>
>
> You're waffling.
>
>
>
> You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you.
>
>
>
> Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any
> basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two.
>
>
>
> You haven't identified any basic visual units  - you don't have any. Do
> you? Yes/no.
>
>
>
> No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through
> and through.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Jones 
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM
>
> *To:* agi 
>
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat
> previous arguments to you.
>
> You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler
> concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your
> example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because
> *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a
> certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions?
>
> The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a
> recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite
> funny.
>
> Dave
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner 
> wrote:
>
> Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled
> as if everything was made up of matter
>
>
>
> And "matter" is... ?  Huh?
>
>
>
> You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you
> will pay a heavy price in lost time.
>
>
>
> What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units"  wh. you are
> claiming to exist?
>
>
>
> You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty
> fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be
> expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern
> for "chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to
> understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform*
> schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs.
>
>
>
> You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had
> never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming
> that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you
> haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these
> basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a
> few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist.
>
>
>
> Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call
> "fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the
> world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a
> freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the
> box/brick/"fundamental unit".
>
>
>
> *From:* David Jones 
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM
>
> *To:* agi 
>
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to
> make sure these problems are addressed.
>
> See more comments below.
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner 
> wrote:
>
> 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make
> clear why your approach is one and not the other
>
>
> I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI
> 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to
> handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without
> requiring a change in design.
>
>
>
>
> 2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it -  vast nos. of progs. claim
> they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and
> AGI learning?
>
>
> The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you
> can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it
> needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and
> analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to.
>
>
>
>
> 3) "Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about
> and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what
> makes it general!"
>
>
>
> Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonst