the specific test example [s] can be generalised - it doesn't have to be
the only one test
I just did it - tho v. crudely with the jigsaw example..
the rearranging of pieces in the jigsaw can be likened to the rearranging of
events required to tell a story of how something came about, or items to
pack in a suitcase, or sets of numbers that have to add up to a given total
in a maths/IQ prob.
but there have to be specific examples - the human mind simply can't
understand what it means by different kinds of intelligence without them
[what's happening here is what's happening with Ben and everyone else - this
general reluctance to look for examples - you know why? - it's HARD work -
that's the only real reason...
thinking about intelligence/ problemsolving is much harder than most kinds
of generalisation - the reason is you can't just shuttle back and forth from
generalisation to particularisation as you do in many areas... if you want
to think about intelligence you have to make your generalisation, then
SWITCH ENTIRELY TO THE PARTICULAR - I.E. you test it by doing particular
kinds of problems, mathematical, linguistic, packing suitcases, telling
stories, whatever - & observe yourself doing the problem ... and you
usually need to do more than one in fact several problems.. which all takes
time... and only THEN can you go back to the general level and modify your
generalisations...
most people are too impatient to do this.. but it's the only way to make
progress here]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles D Hixson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Why do you think your AGI design will work?
Mike Tintner wrote:
yes, but that's not precise enough.
you have to have a task example that focusses what is going on
adaptively... you're not specifiying what kinds of essays/ maths etc
what challenge does the problem pose to the solver's existing rules for
reaching a goal?
how does the solver adapt their rules to solve it?
...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles D Hixson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Why do you think your AGI design will work?
Mike Tintner wrote:
Hi,
I strongly disagree - there is a need to provide a definition of AGI -
not necessarily the right or optimal definition, but one that poses
concrete challenges and focusses the mind - even if it's only a
starting-point. The reason the Turing Test has been such a successful/
popular idea is that it focusses the mind.
...
OK. A program is an AGI if it can do a high school kid's homework and
get him good grades for 1 week (during which there aren't any
pop-quizes, mid-terms, or other in-school and closed book exams.
That's not an optimal definition, but if you can handle essays and story
problems and math and biology as expressed by a teacher, then you've got
a pretty good AGI.
-----
...
...
But the point is, a precise definition is useless. Turing's test was
established so that (paraphrase)"If a program could do this, then you
would have to agree that it was intelligent.", it wasn't intended as a
practical test that some future program would pass. If we were to start
passing laws about the rights and privileges of intelligent programs, then
a "necessary & sufficient" test would be needed. To do development work
it may be more of a handicap than an assist. (I.e., it would tend to
focus effort on meeting the definition rather on where the program should
logically next be developed.)
P.S.: I meant an arbitrary week. If it can only handle certain weeks,
then it is clearly either not that intelligent, or has been poorly
educated. (However, I have a rather lower opinion than many of the
amount of intelligence exhibited by humans, tending more toward a belief
that they operate largely on reflexes and evolved rather than chosen
goals. Consider, e.g., the number of people not who start to believe in
astrology, but rather who continue to believe in it for years. A simple
examination of predictions will demonstrate that nothing significant was
predicted in advance, but only explained afterwards. [OTOH, it *was* once
useful for determining when to plant which crops.])
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007 13:39
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
