Mike Tintner said:Your project must have an E.M. for how BALL + BOX =
BALLBOX i.e. you have to show how with only standard knowledge of two objects,
balls & boxes, you can a) generate and/or b) understand a new, third object,
“ball-box” that is derived from them by non-standard means. In this case, a
BALLBOX is a box shaped like a ball rather than a
cube.------------------------------------------ I am only replying to this as a
way to repeat one of my ideas that seems obvious or commonsensical me. It takes
many 'statements' about a simple idea to understand it. So if you removed all
knowledge except that knowledge that referred to a box or a ball then the
text-based program would not be able to figure out that a "ballbox" was
referring to a box shaped like a ball rather than a cube. And in fact, I did
not realize what Mike was talking about until he made the statement that, "a
ballbox is a box shaped like a ball rather than a cube." So no, an AGI program
would not be able to figure that out without information beyond the heavily
redacted information about balls and boxes. However, once the definition of a
"ballbox" was made, as Mike made it for us, a text only AGI program would be
able to figure it out (just as I was able to figure it out once I read it,) and
use the term intelligibly. And, significantly, if the text-based AGI program
had many statements about different things it would be able to consider ideas
like: A box that can hold a ball. (That was my first guess.)A sphere that can
hold a box. (That is a simple rearrangement of terms.)An box that was shaped
like a ball.A ball that was shaped like a box.A metaphor of something else. For
example, a square line on the ground where balls are put or something (similar
to a "batter's box"). It is easy to see that these could all be generated using
computational methods of rational creativity if the program had general
knowledge about many different things. The real question is whether or not a
text-based AGI program would ever be able to distinguish what kinds of things
words "box" or "ball" referred to without ever seeing one. I can say that
there are human beings who are born blind but who can use references to things
like, "the view of the mountains in the distance," intelligibly. If the
program used terms like this intelligibly their use would always be removed
slightly from our more familiar use of the terms. But so what? The text-based
AGI model is just a step that is being made to try to discover *how thinking
works* in general rather than precise subprograms that concern the visual
shapes of things (as in Mike's unconscious cherry-picked example.) Jim Bromer
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [agi] A General O.D. (Operational Definition) for all AGI projects
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 10:25:31 +0100
What we’ve just
seen with Jim is yet another example here of effective creative illiteracy
–s.o.
talking about their “creative” AGI project without any attempt at defining
either its O.D. (the effect to be achieved) or an effective mechanism -
without, to put that extremely crudely in common parlance, having any
“idea”.
To repeat, this
is appalling – it’s simply non-creative and a waste of
space.
So to take
further steps to eradicate this disease, let me put forward a general O.D. for
A.G.I projects (and to some extent all culturally creative
projects).
Your project
must have an E.M. for how
BALL + BOX =
BALLBOX
i.e. you have
to show how with only standard knowledge of two objects, balls & boxes, you
can a) generate and/or b) understand a new, third object, “ball-box” that is
derived from them by non-standard means. In this case, a BALLBOX is a box
shaped
like a ball rather than a cube.
(That is a more
concrete way of saying: “you must be able to show how your project can think
outside the box”).
Another example
would be, you must have an E.M. for how
CAT + DOG =
CATOTAUR
a creature,
similar to a minotaur, half cat, half dog.
Or, you must
have an E.M. for how
2 + 2 =
5
again, your
machine must from knowledge of standard maths be able to produce non-standard
maths. (And for the benefit of “same old, same old” Matt, that does not mean
googling an existing 2+2=5 “proof” – you have to generate/understand an
altogether new one).
Or, you must be able to show
how
2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4
rocks.
You must be able to show how having knowledge of
how two rocks are laid, you can lay another two rocks on top of them. Laying
rock walls is not a math operation like laying brick walls – each rock is
individually formed and needs to be laid individually.
(Or your system must just be able to
recognize/conceptualise ROCK, since all rock forms are individual and
non-standard).
In all of these cases, you combine two objects to
produce a third object that has never, to your knowledge, been derived from
them
before.
You do “magic” – you put a rabbit in an empty hat
and pull out a bird. You put a penis in a vagina and pull out a baby (“where
did
that come from?”)
It’s a waste of time to even ask Jim to produce
an O.D., but anyone serious about AGI will want to produce an O.D. with an E.M.
-
an explanation of a BALL
BOX.
AGI | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
