Jim, Haven't you learned?!!!
If you look at an old dictionary at the definition of "soul" you will see a definition that is pretty close to AGI via downloading. Then, introduce "modern" science and read a recent dictionary, and you will see how AGIs have been carefully excluded. AGI, being its own religion, will do much the same thing. EVERYTHING will become "just narrow AI" in the constant quest for their new God - until a God is eventually created that destroys its creator. No one knows what makes us tick. It might well be that what we now call "neural networks" is just another wrong turn, and hence might be a dysfunctional benchmark for future AGI construction. So, in answer to your question and with the above as background, YES, Watson is just narrow AI like everything else. *Steve* On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Even though Watson-Jeopardy did not use Neural Networks or something > that was intuitively similar to them, I believe it was an example of > deep learning. But the question that many of us are more interested in > is was it an example of Narrow AI? My first response is that it is not > because it can be applied to such a wide range of problems (even out > of the box-or out of the virtual box). So then, why isn't it AGI? Why > can't it think outside the box? Why does it not demonstrate the traits > of what I call semi-strong AI? This question bothered me but I think I > finally have figured it out. > > Part of the answer is that it (probably) is not very good at what I > call Conceptual Integration. But that does not really answer the > question adequately. > > I think they were able to eliminate the Frame Problem because the > Jeopardy system was explicitly designed for Q&A. The relevancy problem > (a form of the frame problem) occurs because most questions can lead > to a combinatorial explosion of possibilities. But by focusing on > specific kinds of questions which have distinctive characteristics > they could eliminate many kinds of open ended questions. > > For example, is it likely that I will create an actual AI program > (that does something novel) or is it unlikely? Right now I can't > answer that question. Not only is an open ended question but it is > also a question which does not have a well-defined answer path. > However, I could make long arguments supporting either possibility. I > think I noted this a few years ago but a Jeopardy question has to have > a historical, encyclopedic or journalistic entry to support it. When > you look at Watson's second choices to its questions many of them > seemed to be surprisingly irrelevant. > > But the Q&A frame really does not narrow the question about why it > worked sufficiently. Extensive knowledge about NLP, both from earlier > sources and derived by the analysis of text is also necessary. > > So I think that Watson is not Narrow AI but its success depended on > its application to narrow kinds of problems. > > This analysis may be superficial but it gives me some insight about > what I want to work on. I will probably end up developing a semi-AI > program that can endlessly ruminate on my thoughts about some subject. > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
