Kevin, I'm sure you're right in a theoretical sense, but in practice, I have a strong feeling it will be a lot easier to teach an AGI stuff if one has a nonlinguistic world to communicate to it about.
Rather than just communicating in math and English, I think teaching will be much easier if the system can at least perceive 2D pixel patterns. It'll be a lot nicer to be able to tell it "There's a circle" when there's a circle on the screen [that you and it both see] -- to tell it "the circle is moving fast", "You stopped the circle", etc. etc. Then to have it see a whole lot of circles so that, in an unsupervised way, it gets used to perceiving them.... This is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of pragmatics.... I think that a perceptual-motor domain in which a variety of cognitively simple patterns are simply expressed, will make world-grounded early language learning much easier... -- Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of maitri > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV > > > I don't want to underestimate the value of embodiment for an AI system, > especially for the development of consciousness. But this is just my > opinion... > > As far as a very useful AGI, I don't see the necessity of a body > or sensory > inputs beyond textual input. Almost any form can be represented as > mathematical models that can easily be input to the system in that manner. > I'm sure there are others on this list that have thought a lot more about > this than I have.. > > Kevin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shane Legg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:18 PM > Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV > > > > Gary Miller wrote: > > > On Dec. 9 Kevin said: > > > > > > "It seems to me that building a strictly "black box" AGI that > only uses > > > text or graphical input\output can have tremendous > implications for our > > > society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost > anything can > > > be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing > > > with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be > > > needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that > > > these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing > because it will > > > make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses...." > > > > My understanding is that this current trend came about as follows: > > > > Classical AI system where either largely disconnected from the physical > > world or lived strictly in artificial mirco worlds. This lead to a > > number of problems including the famous "symbol grounding problem" where > > the agent's symbols lacked any grounding in an external reality. As a > > reaction to these problems many decided that AI agents needed to be > > more grounded in the physical world, "embodiment" as they call it. > > > > Some now take this to an extreme and think that you should start with > > robotic and sensory and control stuff and forget about logic and what > > thinking is and all that sort of thing. This is what you see now in > > many areas of AI research, Brooks and the Cog project at MIT being > > one such example. > > > > Shane > > > > > > ------- > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > subscription, > > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate > your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
