Matt and Stefan, First, let's discuss the nature of reality. Our world is INCREDIBLY complex, e.g. cells communicate with other cells via ~100 different channels. No theory can accurately deal with this, e.g. Newton didn't consider Einstein, Einstein didn't consider dark matter, and I suspect understanding dark matter will still leave an imperfect understanding.
ALL theories are wrong!!! Sure, there might be a correct one somewhere, but if we ever run onto it, we will NOT be able to either recognize it or prove its perfection. The Scientific Method provides a mechanism to prefer some imperfect theories over other even more imperfect theories. Not 1% of 1% of "scientific" papers exist within the above reality, so they are uncodable in a system that respects the basics of reality. Getting down to real world utility, I have developed new cures for several illnesses, using the information contained in thousands of articles to form theories to get onto a scientific track. I estimate that only ~1% of articles contain ANY information that contributes to this process, and even that information often emerges from between the lines. MATT: I seriously question the practicality or value of ANY system operating on <1% S/N ratio, especially when there is often broad correlation in the noise - which of course is why they have failed to find solutions. The most obvious example came in eliminating my own glaucoma blind spots. It dawned on me that everyone (else) might have simply presumed the wrong direction of cause and effect - that vascular deterioration was impairing retinal operation, rather than the reverse. Reversing this presumption quickly led to a permanent cure using my own modest abilities, and my blind spots are niw GONE. MATT and STEFAN: Facts have referrants. It is (nearly?) impossible to accurately state ANY real world fact without a LOT of qualification - SO much qualification that properly qualified facts, if they even exist, would be worthless because they would only describe a single point in 4-D space-time. To get past this, people encode believed relationships, which by their nature incorporate theories presumed to be accurate, when we know (or should know) they are NOT accurate. "Modern" AI systems utilize knowledge bases in which to encode these relationships, e.g. in an algebraic form, as I implemented in my DrEliza proof of concept. DrEliza only incorporates ~200 such relationships - close to what Matt calls "rules" but with some substantial enhancements. Forcing expression into a particular algebraic form brings some substational advantages, e.g. Bayesian math, Zipf presumptions to fill in some missing data, etc. Legacy approaches (like Arthur has apparently utilized) code "rules" in a procedural language, in what is often called "ad hoc" (unstructured) programming. This has an advantage of raw speed to evaluate rules, and you can hire programmers off the street and put them right to work, but misses lots of important nuances like the ability to compute confidence, which is REALLY important in high-value applications like medical diagnosis. Chatbots (like Arthur has apparently programmed) are typically ad hoc programmed, because speed is more important than precision. EVERY approach to AI is the BEST for SOME applications, so I find ALL of the openly elitist postings on this forum to be rather irksome. What bothers me about Arthur is his unaddressed inability to state what he is doing in terms that others here can relate to, and his inability to clearly explain his dream based on this. Steve On Feb 16, 2019 3:00 PM, "Matt Mahoney" <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote: Steve, how many rules are in Dr. Eliza? How long did it take you to develop Dr. Eliza? How many rules would it take to encode the knowledge in all the world's published scientific papers (75 million)? On Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 1:51 PM Steve Richfield <steve.richfi...@gmail.com wrote: > Arthur, > > I have been one of your few supporters, but if you are going to usefully > engage with the present audience, you REALLY need to answer two questions, > that if done well will lead to other questions, that will lead to a useful > conversation... > > 1. THEORY: In broad computer science terms, how does your system work? > From what I can tell, it is an ad hoc text manipulation program capable of > gathering information and answering simple questions within the limited > subject domains that have been programmed. Right? > > 2. APPLICATION: What will your approach be able to do that the machine > learning approaches discussed here can never ever be extended to do, and > why? For example, my system works to diagnose chronic illnesses in a way > that can NEVER EVER be equalled with ML approaches. From what I can tell, > your system might be extended to make a really good military inventory > program. > > As with all AI programs, their authors have dreams for them that exceed > everyone else's expectations, and you and I are no exceptions. I understand > that ONLY ad hoc logic will EVER be capable of incorporating human > understanding of our world into a computer, a simple fact that is > universally rejected by others on this forum for NO good non-religious > reason. So, until others here wake up, at minimum, I should be able to > relate to your postings. If you can't carry me along, then you truly are > COMPLETELY wasting your time and your life by continuing to post. > > Steve Richfield > > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc360a468d4050822-Mcc680790f8529689d5d2e7fe> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc360a468d4050822-M6fe5554cdf4507ca9bcd3ed7 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
