Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC. The training sets can be generated simply by playing the agents against each other using random moves and letting the agents know if it passed or failed as a feedback mechanism. Cheers, Deepak On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 matmaho...@yahoo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:38 AM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:09 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI And are you happy with: AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can 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 of problems)? *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do). On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner tint
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Training data is not available in many real problems. I don't think training data should be used as the main learning mechanism. It likely won't solve any of the problems. On Jul 21, 2010 2:52 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC. The training sets can be generated simply by playing the agents against each other using random moves and letting the agents know if it passed or failed as a feedback mechanism. Cheers, Deepak On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, I think we a... -- cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Matt, How did you learn to play chess? Or write programs? How do you teach people to write programs? Compare and contrast - esp. the nature and number/ extent of instructions - with how you propose to force a computer to learn below. Why is it that if you tell a child [real AGI] what to do, it will never learn? Why can and does a human learner get to ask questions and a computer doesn't? How come you [a real AGI] can get to choose your instructors and textbooks, and/or whether you choose to pay attention to them, and a computer can't? Why do computers stop learning once they've done what they're told, and humans and animals never stop and keep going on to learn ever new activities? What and how many are the fundamental differences between how real AGI's and computers learn? 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 of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can 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 of problems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
A child AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is all stating the obvious. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: 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. --- 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
Infants *start* with general learning skills - they have to extensively discover for themselves how to do most things - control head, reach out, turn over, sit up, crawl, walk - and also have to work out perceptually what the objects they see are, and what they do... and what sounds are, and how they form words, and how those words relate to objects - and how language works it is this capacity to keep discovering ways of doing things, that is a major motivation in their continually learning new activities - continually seeking novelty, and getting bored with too repetitive activities obviously an AGI needs some help.. but at the mo. all projects get *full* help/ *complete* instructions - IOW are merely dressed up versions of narrow AI no one AFAIK is dealing with the issue of how do you produce a true goalseeking agent who *can* discover things for itself? - an agent, that like humans and animals, can *find* its way to its goals generally, as well as to learning new activities, on its own initiative - rather than by following instructions. (The full instruction method only works in artificial, controlled environments and can't possibly work in the real, uncontrollable world - where future conditions are highly unpredictable, even by the sagest instructor). [Ben BTW strikes me as merely gesturing at all this]. There really can't be any serious argument about this - humans and animals clearly learn all their activities with v. limited and largely general rather than step-by-step instructions. You may want to argue there is an underlying general program that effectively specifies every step they must take (good luck) - but with respect to all their specialist.particular activities, - think having a conversation, sex, writing a post, an essay, fantasying, shopping, browsing the net, reading a newspaper - etc etc. - you got and get v. little step-by-step instruction about these and all your other activities So AGI's require a fundamentally and massively different paradigm of instruction to the program, comprehensive, step-by-step paradigm of narrow AI. [The rock wall/toybox tests BTW are AGI activities, where it is *impossible* to give full instructions, or produce a formula, whatever you may want to do]. From: rob levy Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI A child AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is all stating the obvious. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: 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. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
I completely agree with this characterization, I was just pointing out the importance already-existing generally intelligent entities in providing scaffolding for the system's learning and meta-learning processes. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Infants *start* with general learning skills - they have to extensively discover for themselves how to do most things - control head, reach out, turn over, sit up, crawl, walk - and also have to work out perceptually what the objects they see are, and what they do... and what sounds are, and how they form words, and how those words relate to objects - and how language works it is this capacity to keep discovering ways of doing things, that is a major motivation in their continually learning new activities - continually seeking novelty, and getting bored with too repetitive activities obviously an AGI needs some help.. but at the mo. all projects get *full* help/ *complete* instructions - IOW are merely dressed up versions of narrow AI no one AFAIK is dealing with the issue of how do you produce a true goalseeking agent who *can* discover things for itself? - an agent, that like humans and animals, can *find* its way to its goals generally, as well as to learning new activities, on its own initiative - rather than by following instructions. (The full instruction method only works in artificial, controlled environments and can't possibly work in the real, uncontrollable world - where future conditions are highly unpredictable, even by the sagest instructor). [Ben BTW strikes me as merely gesturing at all this]. There really can't be any serious argument about this - humans and animals clearly learn all their activities with v. limited and largely general rather than step-by-step instructions. You may want to argue there is an underlying general program that effectively specifies every step they must take (good luck) - but with respect to all their specialist.particular activities, - think having a conversation, sex, writing a post, an essay, fantasying, shopping, browsing the net, reading a newspaper - etc etc. - you got and get v. little step-by-step instruction about these and all your other activities So AGI's require a fundamentally and massively different paradigm of instruction to the program, comprehensive, step-by-step paradigm of narrow AI. [The rock wall/toybox tests BTW are AGI activities, where it is *impossible* to give full instructions, or produce a formula, whatever you may want to do]. *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI A child AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is all stating the obvious. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: 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. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
No, Dave I vaguely agree here that you have to start simple. To think of movies is massively confused - rather like saying: when we have created an entire new electric supply system for cars, we will have solved the problem of replacing gasoline - first you have to focus just on inventing a radically cheaper battery, before you consider the possibly hundreds to thousands of associated inventions and innovations.involved in creating a major new supply system. Here it would be much simpler to focus on understanding a single photographic scene - or real, directly-viewed scene - of objects, rather than the many thousands involved in a movie. In terms of language, it would be simpler to focus on understanding just two consecutive sentences of a text or section of dialogue - or even as I've already suggested, just the flexible combinations of two words - rather than the hundreds of lines and many thousands of words involved in a movie or play script. And even this is probably all too evolved, for humans only came to use formal representations of the world v. recently in evolution. The general point - a massively important one - is that AGI-ers cannot continue to think of AGI in terms of massively complex and evolved intelligent systems, as you are doing. You have to start with the simplest possible systems and gradually evolve them. Anything else is a defiance of all the laws of technology - and will see AGI continuing to go absolutely nowhere. From: deepakjnath Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Exactly my point. So if I show a demo of an AGI system that can see two movies and understand that the plot of the movies are same even though they are 2 entirely different movies, you would agree that we have created a true AGI. Yes there are always lot of things we need to do before we reach that level. Its just good to know the destination so that we will know it when it arrives. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a text - can understand any text period - can understand language, period. And you want an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand that requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly educated, hugely complex set of powers . No AI can understand a photograph of a scene, period - a crowd scene, a house by the river. Programs are hard put to recognize any objects other than those in v. standard positions. And you want an AGI that can understand a *movie*. You don't seem to realise that we can't take the smallest AGI *step* yet - and you're fantasying about a superevolved AGI globetrotter. That's why Benjamin I tried to focus on v. v. simple tests - they're still way too complex they (or comparable tests) will have to be refined down considerably for anyone who is interested in practical vs sci-fi fantasy AGI. I recommend looking at Packbots and other military robots and hospital robots and the like, and asking how we can free them from their human masters and give them the very simplest of capacities to rove and handle the world independently - like handling and travelling on rocks. Anyone dreaming of computers or robots that can follow Gone with The Wind or become a child (real) scientist in the foreseeable future pace Ben, has no realistic understanding of what is involved. From: deepakjnath Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for AGI structure. The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub plots is an important requirement of AGI. Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Please explain/expound freely why you're not convinced - and indicate what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow. Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test OR a def. of AGI. One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - almost by definition, there is no such thing as a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test - having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be presented with a new adjacent test for wh. it has had no preparation, like say building
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’ ‘The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why.’ — Albert Einstein We are here talking like programmers who needs to build a new system; Just divide the problem, solve it one by one, arrange the pieces and voila. We are missing something fundamentally here. That I believe has to come as a stroke of genius to someone. thanks, Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: No, Dave I vaguely agree here that you have to start simple. To think of movies is massively confused - rather like saying: when we have created an entire new electric supply system for cars, we will have solved the problem of replacing gasoline - first you have to focus just on inventing a radically cheaper battery, before you consider the possibly hundreds to thousands of associated inventions and innovations.involved in creating a major new supply system. Here it would be much simpler to focus on understanding a single photographic scene - or real, directly-viewed scene - of objects, rather than the many thousands involved in a movie. In terms of language, it would be simpler to focus on understanding just two consecutive sentences of a text or section of dialogue - or even as I've already suggested, just the flexible combinations of two words - rather than the hundreds of lines and many thousands of words involved in a movie or play script. And even this is probably all too evolved, for humans only came to use formal representations of the world v. recently in evolution. The general point - a massively important one - is that AGI-ers cannot continue to think of AGI in terms of massively complex and evolved intelligent systems, as you are doing. You have to start with the simplest possible systems and gradually evolve them. Anything else is a defiance of all the laws of technology - and will see AGI continuing to go absolutely nowhere. *From:* deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Exactly my point. So if I show a demo of an AGI system that can see two movies and understand that the plot of the movies are same even though they are 2 entirely different movies, you would agree that we have created a true AGI. Yes there are always lot of things we need to do before we reach that level. Its just good to know the destination so that we will know it when it arrives. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a text - can understand any text period - can understand language, period. And you want an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand that requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly educated, hugely complex set of powers . No AI can understand a photograph of a scene, period - a crowd scene, a house by the river. Programs are hard put to recognize any objects other than those in v. standard positions. And you want an AGI that can understand a *movie*. You don't seem to realise that we can't take the smallest AGI *step* yet - and you're fantasying about a superevolved AGI globetrotter. That's why Benjamin I tried to focus on v. v. simple tests - they're still way too complex they (or comparable tests) will have to be refined down considerably for anyone who is interested in practical vs sci-fi fantasy AGI. I recommend looking at Packbots and other military robots and hospital robots and the like, and asking how we can free them from their human masters and give them the very simplest of capacities to rove and handle the world independently - like handling and travelling on rocks. Anyone dreaming of computers or robots that can follow Gone with The Wind or become a child (real) scientist in the foreseeable future pace Ben, has no realistic understanding of what is involved. *From:* deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for AGI structure
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Non-reply. Name one industry/ section of technology that began with, say, the invention of the car, skipping all the many thousands of stages from the invention of the wheel. What you and others are proposing is far, far more outrageous. It won't require one but a million strokes of genius in one - a stroke of divinity. More fantasy AGI. From: deepakjnath Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:00 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI ‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’ ‘The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why.’ — Albert Einstein We are here talking like programmers who needs to build a new system; Just divide the problem, solve it one by one, arrange the pieces and voila. We are missing something fundamentally here. That I believe has to come as a stroke of genius to someone. thanks, Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: No, Dave I vaguely agree here that you have to start simple. To think of movies is massively confused - rather like saying: when we have created an entire new electric supply system for cars, we will have solved the problem of replacing gasoline - first you have to focus just on inventing a radically cheaper battery, before you consider the possibly hundreds to thousands of associated inventions and innovations.involved in creating a major new supply system. Here it would be much simpler to focus on understanding a single photographic scene - or real, directly-viewed scene - of objects, rather than the many thousands involved in a movie. In terms of language, it would be simpler to focus on understanding just two consecutive sentences of a text or section of dialogue - or even as I've already suggested, just the flexible combinations of two words - rather than the hundreds of lines and many thousands of words involved in a movie or play script. And even this is probably all too evolved, for humans only came to use formal representations of the world v. recently in evolution. The general point - a massively important one - is that AGI-ers cannot continue to think of AGI in terms of massively complex and evolved intelligent systems, as you are doing. You have to start with the simplest possible systems and gradually evolve them. Anything else is a defiance of all the laws of technology - and will see AGI continuing to go absolutely nowhere. From: deepakjnath Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Exactly my point. So if I show a demo of an AGI system that can see two movies and understand that the plot of the movies are same even though they are 2 entirely different movies, you would agree that we have created a true AGI. Yes there are always lot of things we need to do before we reach that level. Its just good to know the destination so that we will know it when it arrives. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a text - can understand any text period - can understand language, period. And you want an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand that requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly educated, hugely complex set of powers . No AI can understand a photograph of a scene, period - a crowd scene, a house by the river. Programs are hard put to recognize any objects other than those in v. standard positions. And you want an AGI that can understand a *movie*. You don't seem to realise that we can't take the smallest AGI *step* yet - and you're fantasying about a superevolved AGI globetrotter. That's why Benjamin I tried to focus on v. v. simple tests - they're still way too complex they (or comparable tests) will have to be refined down considerably for anyone who is interested in practical vs sci-fi fantasy AGI. I recommend looking at Packbots and other military robots and hospital robots and the like, and asking how we can free them from their human masters and give them the very simplest of capacities to rove and handle the world independently - like handling and travelling on rocks. Anyone dreaming of computers or robots that can follow Gone with The Wind or become a child (real) scientist in the foreseeable future pace Ben, has no realistic understanding of what is involved. From: deepakjnath Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at doing and somethings
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob --- 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
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 valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do). On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Fogel originally used the phrase to argue that evolutionary computation makes sense as a cognitive architecture for a general-purpose AI problem solver. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote: Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do). On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
OK. so you're saying: AGI is solving problems where you have to *devise* a method of solution/solving the problem and is that devising in effect or actually/formally? - ** vs narrow AI wh. is where you *apply* a pre-existing method of solution/solving the problem ? And are you happy with: AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) vs narrow AI is about applying pre-existing *general* methods of problemsolving (applicable to whole classes of problems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to 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 valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
And are you happy with: AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can 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 of problems)? *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do). On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
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 of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can 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 of problems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to 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 valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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 thesetests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI,period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
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 of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can 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 of problems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to 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 valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. I like Fogel's idea that intelligence is the ability to solve the problem of how to solve problems in new and changing environments. I don't think Fogel's method accomplishes this, but the goal he expresses seems to be the goal of AGI as I understand it. Rob agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't think a test is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how what you have built fits into the bigger scheme of things. There is no such point at which you can say something is AGI and not AGI. Intelligence is a very subjective thing that really depends on your goals. Someone will always say it is not good enough. But if it really works, people will quickly realize it based on results. What you want is to develop a system that can learn about the world or its environment in a general way so that it can solve arbitrary problems, be able to plan in general ways, act in general ways and perform the types of goals you want it to perform. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: David Jones davidher...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 3:10:12 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't think a test is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how what you have built fits into the bigger scheme of things. There is no such point at which you can say something is AGI and not AGI. Intelligence is a very subjective thing that really depends on your goals. Someone will always say it is not good enough. But if it really works, people will quickly realize it based on results. What you want is to develop a system that can learn about the world or its environment in a general way so that it can solve arbitrary problems, be able to plan in general ways, act in general ways and perform the types of goals you want it to perform. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- cheers, Deepak agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Please explain/expound freely why you're not convinced - and indicate what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow. Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test OR a def. of AGI. One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - almost by definition, there is no such thing as a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test - having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be presented with a new adjacent test for wh. it has had no preparation, like say building with cushions or sand bags or packing with fruit. (and neither rock/toy test state that clearly) b) one kind of test - this is an AGI, so it should be clear that if it can pass one kind of test, it has the basic potential to go on to many different kinds, and it doesn't really matter which kind of test you start with - that is partly the function of having a good.definition of AGI . From: deepakjnath Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S. Deepakjnath, It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their assets. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- cheers, Deepak agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for AGI structure. The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub plots is an important requirement of AGI. Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Please explain/expound freely why you're not convinced - and indicate what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow. Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test OR a def. of AGI. One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - almost by definition, there is no such thing as a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test - having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be presented with a new adjacent test for wh. it has had no preparation, like say building with cushions or sand bags or packing with fruit. (and neither rock/toy test state that clearly) b) one kind of test - this is an AGI, so it should be clear that if it can pass one kind of test, it has the basic potential to go on to many different kinds, and it doesn't really matter which kind of test you start with - that is partly the function of having a good.definition of AGI . *From:* deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - something to do with insufficient knowledge and resources... Insufficient is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't distinguish AGI from narrow AI. The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is that: ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - and thus acquiring a general, all-round range of intelligence.. This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments continue another time]. P.S
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Deepak, I think you would be much better off focusing on something more practical. Understanding a movie and all the myriad things going on, their significance, etc... that's AI complete. There is no way you are going to get there without a hell of a lot of steps in between. So, you might as well focus on the steps required to get there. Such a test is so complicated, that you cannot even start, except to look for simpler test cases and goals. My approach to testing agi has been to define what AGI must accomplish. Which I have in the following steps: 1) understand the environment 2) understand ones own actions and how they affect the environment 3) understand language 4) learn goals from other people through language 5) perform planning and attempt to achieve goals 6) other miscellaneous requirements. Each step must be accomplished in a general way. By general, I mean that it can solve many many problems with the same programming. Each step must be done in order because each step requires previous steps to proceed. So, to me, the most important place to start is general environment understanding. Then, now that you know where to start, you pick more specific goals and test cases. How do you develop and test general environment understanding? What is a simple test case you can develop on? What are the fundamental problems and principles involved? What is required to solve these problems? Those are the sorts of tests you should be considering. But that only comes after you decide what AGI requires and steps required. Maybe you'll agree with me, maybe you won't. So, that's how I would recommend going about it. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for AGI structure. The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub plots is an important requirement of AGI. Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Please explain/expound freely why you're not convinced - and indicate what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow. Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test OR a def. of AGI. One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - almost by definition, there is no such thing as a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test - having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be presented with a new adjacent test for wh. it has had no preparation, like say building with cushions or sand bags or packing with fruit. (and neither rock/toy test state that clearly) b) one kind of test - this is an AGI, so it should be clear that if it can pass one kind of test, it has the basic potential to go on to many different kinds, and it doesn't really matter which kind of test you start with - that is partly the function of having a good.definition of AGI . *From:* deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a text - can understand any text period - can understand language, period. And you want an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand that requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly educated, hugely complex set of powers . No AI can understand a photograph of a scene, period - a crowd scene, a house by the river. Programs are hard put to recognize any objects other than those in v. standard positions. And you want an AGI that can understand a *movie*. You don't seem to realise that we can't take the smallest AGI *step* yet - and you're fantasying about a superevolved AGI globetrotter. That's why Benjamin I tried to focus on v. v. simple tests - they're still way too complex they (or comparable tests) will have to be refined down considerably for anyone who is interested in practical vs sci-fi fantasy AGI. I recommend looking at Packbots and other military robots and hospital robots and the like, and asking how we can free them from their human masters and give them the very simplest of capacities to rove and handle the world independently - like handling and travelling on rocks. Anyone dreaming of computers or robots that can follow Gone with The Wind or become a child (real) scientist in the foreseeable future pace Ben, has no realistic understanding of what is involved. From: deepakjnath Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for AGI structure. The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub plots is an important requirement of AGI. Deepak On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Please explain/expound freely why you're not convinced - and indicate what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow. Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test OR a def. of AGI. One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - almost by definition, there is no such thing as a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test - having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be presented with a new adjacent test for wh. it has had no preparation, like say building with cushions or sand bags or packing with fruit. (and neither rock/toy test state that clearly) b) one kind of test - this is an AGI, so it should be clear that if it can pass one kind of test, it has the basic potential to go on to many different kinds, and it doesn't really matter which kind of test you start with - that is partly the function of having a good.definition of AGI . From: deepakjnath Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI system. I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people will still be convinced I am sure. I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. Deepak On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of AGI. Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See archives). I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No explanation offered. The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's solves a variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments. Nope, so does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's
