Fun comparisons. Marvin Minsky likes to sound the cautionary alarm on comparisons too, if memory serves? I think we're getting somewhere, just need more people to jump in.
-GJS On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the Wright Bros analogy, but I think people should bear in mind > that an analogy is a weak form of likeness. Flight and thinking are > radically different things. So, I am just suggesting it might not > make sense to line up flight and AGI in some kind of item by item > comparison or the like. "They did such and such at such and such time > therefore..." seems like going too far. IMO. > > On 5/6/15, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nevertheless, despite their brilliant successes, the Wrights never > > completely understood quantitatively the problem of stability of > > rotational motions. They shared that deficiency with all their > > contemporary inventors, for the same reason: they never wrote or > > considered equations for rotational motions.Without the benefit of > > that formalism, they could not understand the true essence of > > stability of rotations. As a practical matter, they could not identify > > the physical contributions to stability, a failure that had > > significant consequences for their work: > > > > But the argument that the Wright brothers knew enough aerodynamic > > equations so that the plane was just an engineering problem misses the > > point. I don't agree with the statement but it is not relevant to what > > you were originally saying. The fact is that they did a lot of > > experiments, changed their designs and did a lot more experiments. > > Right now there are enough mathematical and pseudo-code theories about > > AI to begin experimenting with actual AGI functions even though it > > does seem obvious that there are crucial theories that are still > > missing. So ignoring the fact that there have been great advances in > > AI it is -as if- we are analogously at the point the Wrights were. So > > the next step is to create more insight about the problem as you begin > > some kind of actual experimentation. These experiments would probably > > be basic feasibility and design studies but waiting for the > > mathematics to catch up would not be smart unless you didn't want to > > get involved in the effort until it became a single semester course. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So the Wright Brothers flew ~1900.. but "Working from at least as early > >> as > >> 1796, when he constructed a model helicopter,[18] until his death in > >> 1857, > >> Sir George Cayley is credited as the first person to identify the four > >> aerodynamic forces of flight—weight, lift, drag, and thrust—and the > >> relationships between them" > >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aerodynamics].. "Cayley is > also > >> credited as the first person to develop the modern fixed-wing aircraft > >> concept" As such the fundamental principles of aerodynamics where known > >> more than a hundred years earlier.. > >> > >> "In 1889, Charles Renard, a French aeronautical engineer, became the > >> first > >> person to reasonably predict the power needed for sustained flight." So > >> the > >> math had already been worked out for sustained flight, before the Wright > >> Brothers flew.. > >> > >> Otto Lilienthal, following the work of Sir George Cayley, was the first > >> person to become highly successful with glider flights. Lilienthal > >> believed > >> that thin, curved airfoils would produce high lift and low drag. So the > >> understanding that one could produce lift from curved airfoils was known > >> prior to the Wright brothers.. > >> > >> Octave Chanute's 1893 book, Progress in Flying Machines, outlined all of > >> the > >> known research conducted around the world up to that point.[24] > Chanute's > >> book provided a great service to those interested in aerodynamics and > >> flying > >> machines. > >> > >> "With the information contained in Chanute's book, the personal > >> assistance > >> of Chanute himself, and research carried out in their own wind tunnel, > >> the > >> Wright brothers gained enough knowledge of aerodynamics to fly the first > >> powered aircraft on December 17, 1903"... So basically we already had > the > >> fundamentals of aerodynamics, and we knew how to create lift and what > was > >> needed for sustained flight. What was left for the Wright brothers to > >> discover? It seems to me that given what the Wright brothers knew human > >> flight was more of an engineering problem rather than a research > problem. > >> Does this make sense? > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Here is an interesting article about the Wrights that sounds similar to > >>> what I have read before. > >>> > >>> > http://wrightflyer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-First-Aeronautical-Engineers-and-Test-Pilots.pdf > >>> > >>> The belief that the Wrights, who invented the wind tunnel, "just saw an > >>> algorithm and then all they needed to do was to plug the right > variables > >>> into the mathematical equation" in order to create the first successful > >>> powered airplane capable of carrying a person is an not an acceptable > >>> hypothesis to explain how they went about creating the airplane. > >>> > >>> Jim Bromer > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Piaget Modeler > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The only way to test your hypothesis, like the Wright brothers did, is > >>>> to > >>>> build working prototypes and then refine them. > >>>> > >>>> No way 'round it. > >>>> > >>>> Just Do it. > >>>> > >>>> (Oh, that's Nike's slogan). > >>>> > >>>> ~PM > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 10:59:23 -0400 > >>>> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More > >>>> Powerfulthan Narrow AI > >>>> From: [email protected] > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think that the Wright Brothers approach is appropriate for AI / > >>>> Stronger AI / AGI as well. However, I also think it is obvious that > >>>> there is > >>>> ample evidence that digital programming has made numerous advances in > >>>> AGI > >>>> even though the successes seem to lack many human-like methods of > >>>> thought. > >>>> > >>>> I have often wondered why the Wrights got so involved in control > >>>> surfaces > >>>> before they had a successful powered flight. Was it just common sense > >>>> to > >>>> realize that you needed to 'steer' the plane once it got off the > ground, > >>>> or > >>>> was it just ego - since they 'knew' they would succeed they designed > it > >>>> for > >>>> their flights of imagination. Or was it a common meme amongst > >>>> aeronautical > >>>> enthusiasts at the time? Or, did they realize, based on their > >>>> experiments > >>>> with gliders, that they would be able to extend their flights with > >>>> mechanisms to control the attack of the plane in the air even though > >>>> the > >>>> plane would be heavier. (They decided to use wing warping to control > >>>> the > >>>> turns. NASA just tested a jet that is capable of changing the shape of > >>>> its > >>>> wings by the way.) Because this last possible reason might be related > to > >>>> the > >>>> design-experiment-modify the design experiment method as it can be > >>>> applied > >>>> to AI / Stronger AI research. > >>>> > >>>> I want to find some evidence that my design principles would work to > >>>> produce Stronger AI. So, by including some control mechanisms in my > >>>> designs > >>>> I might be able to stretch the distance it can get with the designs I > >>>> have > >>>> in mind. But, if I design for the some-day-in-the-future my control > >>>> mechanisms would get so heavy that they could become a hindrance to > any > >>>> feasible programs that I might try now. But, by designing for a test I > >>>> could > >>>> run in the near future I might find some essential control features > >>>> that > >>>> could be lightweight and effective to stretch the capabilities of the > >>>> program. > >>>> > >>>> But you have to have some feasible plan in mind to do that. If you > want > >>>> to try to do something with AGI right now your program (or device) has > >>>> to be > >>>> simple but effective - in some way. Even though you might not be able > >>>> to > >>>> convince other people based on primitive experiments, you have to be > >>>> able to > >>>> find some evidence that your ideas are going to do something different > >>>> than > >>>> most contemporary AI programs. > >>>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > >>>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > >>> > >>> > >>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > >> > >> > >> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/27055757-c218d4f9 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
