[Replies enclosed] ---What fields would you consider analogous to AI?
Reply: I do not have the technical knowledge to answer that directly, however, the source of relevant analogies might so broad as to include almost every field (e.g. I wouldnt be surprised if "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" has an instantiation in the field of sculpture). ---We can observe some general patterns. ---1. Many great discoveries were made by accident. (If the results were expected, it wouldn't be great). Reply: Perhaps this would justify allocating time to random trial and error (of course not of anything on a finished product stage), although I would not be surprised if the number of plausible random trials was so huge and the likelihood of benefit so small that it wouldnt justify resources. ---2. Many great insights are initially rejected by peers. (How long does it take to award a Nobel prize?) Reply: This could indicate that a general principle that at all times, the set of ideas put forth a smaller amount of time into the past than the amount of time it would take for such an idea to overcome peer rejection would have a greater chance of containing a "diamond in the rough" than would ideas from other times (other things being equal). -Mark -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------- > I imagine the following may have already been considered, > nevertheless: It would seem constructive to undertake an > analysis of breakthroughs in various fields (e.g. engineering, > art, chemistry) to search for patterns that might be > replicable. A general example of what I mean by a "pattern" > would be, "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." Examples of > patterns that such an analysis might uncover could include > patterns of formal logic, the novel application in one field of > a structure established in another field, the retrieval of > insights from historical theories or practices that were once > competitive, but were found inadequate and long forgotten, > etc. An analysis of such patterns and the identification of > meta-patterns would seem to require broad familiarity with the > various disciplines in which the breakthroughs occurred; > however, the work of identifying the patterns of specific > breakthroughs, which might require extensive and deep knowledge > in the respective fields, could be divided amongst various > experts of various fields. Perhaps something like this would > be worth adding to the agenda of the AI Impact Initiative or > some similar interdisciplinary body. > > -Mark ----- 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
