--- Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MT:There isn't an
> > AGI system that has
> > shown, in even the most modest way, higher
> > adaptivity - the capacity, in any
> > given activity, to find new kinds of paths, or
> take
> > new kinds of steps, to
> > its goals - which are, by definition, not derived
> > from its original
> > programming. The capacity, say, to find a new kind
> > of path through a maze or
> > forest.
>
> Tom McCabe: Pathfinding programs, to my knowledge,
> are actually
> quite advanced (due primarily to commerical
> investment). Open up a copy of Warcraft III or any
> other modern computer game and click to make a
> character go from one end of the map to the other.
> How
> does it find a correct route? Pathfinding AIs.
>
> I said an AGI must have the capacity to find a "new
> kind" of path - as
> animals have done throughout evolution.
A new *kind* of path? Is there some kind of category
distinction here, between type #5 paths and type #6
paths?
> Just finding
> your way from one end
> of a map to another doesn't qualify. We don't call
> people "pathfinders" if
> that's all they do.
Really? I would be very happy to call someone a
"pathfinder" if all they did was lead me from one end
of a large wilderness to the other end without getting
lost.
> But this failure to distinguish between basic
> adaptivity and higher
> adaptivity - or, if you like, iterative and
> creative pathfinding - - runs
> right through AGI to my mind..
"Creative" means "having the power of creating", and
any pathfinding algorithm (no matter how dumb) can
create a new path of some sort, when there was no path
beforehand.
> Tom:By the time the AGI has enough intelligence to
> say
> "Hi!", I'm betting that at least 50% of the work
> will
> already be done.
>
> Er, when your AGI says "Hi" to someone, somehow I
> don't think the world is
> going to say "Hallelujah, AGI has arrived."
Exactly, which makes the problem even worse. Think of
the Manhattan Project- they didn't have a usable
weapon until most of the work was already done.
> If you
> and others can even think
> for a second that's 50% of the work - no wonder
> people are so extremely
> casual in estimating AGI's arrival.
I do not mean that, once we invent a bot that says
"Hi!", we're 50% of the way to AGI. I meant that, if
we're building an AGI, and the AGI says "Hi!", then we
are 50% of the way to AGI. Imagine you're building a
new Pentium design for Intel. In order to get a
Pentium that adds 2 + 2, you have to have most of the
complexity in place- the sixty-four bit data pipes and
floating-point multipliers and what not, since you're
trying to design a chip that can do a whole bunch of
stuff besides add. This does not mean that once you
invent *any* device that can add 2 + 2, you're most of
the way to a modern Pentium.
> P.S. For an example of simple but creative
> pathfinding, take UK birds
> recently who suddenly decided to switch from their
> normal dead reckoning
> flight path for long journeys to following the road
> highways instead. You've
> got to be able to go off the map to put AGI on the
> map.
Yer what? I'm trying to say that the ability to do
pathfinding is a *necessary* condition for AGI, not a
sufficient one. I agree that a specialized pathfinding
program is not a general intelligence.
> {That last sentence
> is also a form of higher adaptivity - if your AGI
> could say something like
> that rather than "Hi" - it would certainly have
> arrived).
>
>
>
>
> -----
> 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/?&;
>
- Tom
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
-----
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&id_secret=27084797-c2e7b8
