Ben, Your reply about the makes sense but you should have somehow made it clearer that you were making your choices based on some subjective reasons. I do not think that Solomonoff's methods can be used as a basis for AI and there is no way that you can demonstrate that it has been. Bayesian methods, on the other hand, have been demonstrated to be reasonable basis for AI. If I was spending the time to write an article like that I would be able to provide some substantial basis defending my point of view.
Some time ago I did a thought experiment to try to figure out how I might show that a closed program could generate a wide variety of typographical forms. In order to avoid an ad infinitum iteration on one small variation I realized that the program would have to randomize numerous variables (and variables of the variables). In effect I was operating on the abstractions rather than the object of the abstractions. I realized that my thought experiment was a way to think about the potential of a computer program to represent different forms. It was useful to me only because it showed me how I might generate variations on the abstractions underlying some purpose. So my methodology might be used in an actual AI program to generate possibilities, or more precisely, generate the basis's for the possibilities. It would not stand as a basis for AI itself. Solomonoff's methods do not stand as a basis for AI. (Years from now, when there are thousands of different approaches to AI and AGI we might still disagree about this.) But it should be clear that I am saying that Solomonoff's universal prediction methods are not actually standards for viable AI. Compression methods are not a viable basis for AI either. They could be used as part of the process but it is pretty far fetched to say that any computational technique that could be used in an AI or AGI program could be used as a basis for AI. I just wanted to follow through since you wrote a reasonable reply to my first reply. Jim Bromer On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, Jim, for a reader ignorant about AGI, it seems necessary to give > pointers (in such an article) to SOME specific examples of proto-AGI work, > rather than just leaving it vague. But in a short article it's not > possible to give references to ALL current examples of proto-AGI work.... > So I had to choose some particular examples..... Of course any particular > choice of examples isn't gonna please everyone... > > I would add that the process of getting that article published took a long > time, due to many requests for revisions by the referees.... The final > form is a sort of compromise between me and the referees, as often > happens... > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The smattering of references to various researchers in the "Current Scope >> of the AGI Field," detracts from the work. Your comments about their >> eclectic works do not really add anything to the article. The references >> look like a rather out-of-touch attempt to make the article look scholarly >> or pretentiously encyclopedic. Most of us have added something to the field >> but will not recoup much in return and that goes for the published >> authorities that (it reads like) you have chosen to illustrate >> the conjectured contemporary paths as much as it goes for the rest of us. >> >> I have been working on a novel way to represent 3-SAT problems and for >> the past few weeks I have been trying to see how it was in np but I just >> could not find it. Then this morning I woke up and started >> thinking...(uh...) By the afternoon I finally was able to show that my >> novel method of representing the problem produced a sequence of factors >> that had an unusual growth function which were worse than an exponential >> function. After doing some research on the Internet I found, "The On-Line >> Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences." When I checked I did not find my >> sequence there. So as soon as I check the numbers and figure out a few >> formulas I am going to submit the sequence to the Encyclopedia. It is kind >> of fun and it is the first time I found anything that might have any use at >> all (even if it will only be interesting to a couple of guys who sometimes >> wish that they had a reason to carry miniature slide rules in the >> pockets.) The fact that I found this sequence while working on a >> representation of 3-SAT makes it more interesting than it might be >> otherwise. But it doesn't make me a pioneer or a future authority in the >> p=np field that is emerging in the second decade of 21st century. I spent a >> few hours looking at the sequence and I do not see anything there. I mean I >> may check out some cross-calculations but I do not expect anything - other >> than the sequence itself. So it is kind of interesting but not p=np, not >> AGI and it is only notable because the sequence should be noted by the >> specialists. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> No new concepts here, I just wanted there to be a standard reference for >>> the topic... >>> >>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Artificial_General_Intelligence >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>> http://goertzel.org >>> >>> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one >>> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress >>> depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | Modify >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <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
