Once again, in this hot debate I see several very different issues tangled together.
(1) The original question from Robin: will we see rapid progress in AI/AGI? My answer is yes, and I gave some reasons at the beginning of the discussion. (2) Will we see the success of AI/AGI soon? This is a very different question, and its answer surely depends on how "soon" is interpreted. People can throw in all kinds of numbers, though I haven't found any of them convincing enough for me to arrange my future life accordingly --- though I don't mind to hear them. (3) Is there any AGI design that can be proved/argued to work, to the extent that it can convince the research community? I haven't seen any. Not to mention "the research community", no approach has convinced most people in the AGI field as the most promising yet. (4) If they cannot prove it, how can researchers working on AGI have such a strong belief in their own approach? Because all the other people have quited long ago. Without outside support, "confidence and belief" is the only thing that has supported most of the AGI projects so far. In my case, since I have been working according to my previous plan, and haven't been stopped by a unsolvable problem, my approach seems promising to myself, though I don't expect everyone else to share this belief, and I'm fully aware of the danger of failure, to be found in the future. If someone only works on "research" with predictable success, then it is not really scientific research. It is engineering, which is good, but different. (5) If there is no predictable success, how can AGI ask for more support, even funding? Because it is an important scientific issue, and we know some unexplored paths. I'd rather not promote AGI as something that can bring financial profit very soon --- we don't really know that. (6) Is Novamente the most promising AGI project? I certainly disagree. Though I and Ben agree on many issues, and Novamente remains my second favorite AGI project, I have been criticizing it on a number of key issues. However, I don't think this kind of email exchange is the proper form to address that kind of topic, which requires a far more systematic and detailed treatment. If anyone really have a strong opinion on Novamente or any other AGI project, write a paper --- even just for self-publish on-line. None of the concrete issues raised in this discussion can be settled here. Pei On Nov 12, 2007 10:28 AM, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mark, > > Since the quote you are responding to is from me, let me respond. > > Much of what you say is true. I am aware of multiple places in the > Novamente approach where tough programming, hard engineering choices, and > experimentation are needed. But I don't know where any miracles are > required. > > If you know of any, please point them out to me. > > Perhaps it is because of my own thinking which I have done prior to hearing > of Novamente, but I have not thought reasoning by analogy is conceptually > hard for years. Read Hofstadter's CopyCat and think how it could map into > Novamente. A little imagination is required. Of course, tuning it to get > near optimal results might not be trivial. > > I would not suggest for one second that the Novamente approach is the only, > or necessarily best approach (for all I know the NSA may already have > something better up and running). I, like you, think I know of things that > could improve it. But it is the best, most complete, overall approach of > which I know, and since a lot has been written on it, it is an approach one > can discuss without having to spend a hundred pages to let people know what > you are talking about. > > In multiple posts I have used the phrase Novamente-like approach. I think > Jeff Hawkin's approach actually is somewhat Novamente-like, and the two > approach are actually likely to get more similar, at an abstract level, as > they each become more complete systems and get more experience with the > problem. > > In several posts I have said the fastest way to AGI would be for there to be > serious funding of multiple different teams. Currently based on my > knowledge, which is far from omnipotent, I think Novamente should be one of > those teams. But I would not suggest any serious effort by deep funding to > jump start AGI should place all its eggs in one basket. > > If you don't think the Novamente approach is the fastest path to AGI, I > would be interesting in hearing what you consider to be better. I would > also be interested in hearing what you consider to be the other nearest > competitive approaches. > > Ed Porter > > (617) 494-1722 > Fax (617) 494-1822 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:26 AM > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI? > > > > > > As I wrote to Robin Hanson earlier today, the fact you don't agree > > with > > what we view as the relatively high probability of success for our > > approach does not reflect poorly on either your intelligence or your > > knowledge of AI. If you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about a > > Novamente-like approach there is no reason, no matter how bright you are > > that you should be able to understand its promise. > > Maybe I shouldn't get into this, but . . . . > > I've read the detailed Novamente design. It meshed very well with a lot of > my previous intuitions and in some areas went into a lot more detail (and > went into a lot less detail in others). I firmly believe that an AGI could > be built on top of Novamente's design. > > That being said, I don't believe that Novamente is particularly close to the > fastest path to AGI for several reasons. > > First, Novamente is a discovery system (and a *really* good one). The other > parts of it's design, however, are not fully fleshed out and there are huge > "a miracle happens here" holes. This is not to denigrate Ben and his team > in any way, shape, or form. They've done wonders with their resources and > can't do everything. > > Second, over the past few years, I've become more and more convinced that > discovery systems, while they do "learn", are not the type of learning that > I think is necessary for AGI. Novamente can certainly tease out patterns > from large quantities of data but it isn't fully designed (at this point) to > do anything like reasoning by analogy, for example. Ben does have some > plans for this but, my opinion is that, he is still in the realm of "a > miracle happens here" on this subject. > > Third, and I've said this before, there are some fundamental engineering > features (scale-invariance of knowledge, ways of determining and exploiting > encapsulation and modularity of knowledge without killing useful "leaky" > abstractions, etc.) that aren't implemented yet in Novamente that really > need to be implemented much earlier rather than later. Also, I have a lot > of questions about Novamente's "memory" design. > > In particular, I think that Novamente's foray into learning in a virtual > world is either going to be incredibly useful or a rather large bust because > it is precisely the type of learning that Novamente hasn't specialized in > before this point. > > A number of people on this list seem to regard Ben as almost a deity or a > prophet. Ben is intelligent, creative, has a solid background, and gets to > work hard in the field so he looks a lot better than most everyone else. It > also means that he has polished his ideas and eliminated the most obvious > problems. This does not, however, mean that he has a provably correct path. > Novamente may lead to AGI (with *a lot* more hard work). Personally, as > I've said, I believe that it is *a path* but one which will be overtaken and > passed by a shorter, easier path (just as I believe that brain emulation is > a path that will be overtaken and passed by a shorter, easier path). > > When one simply looks at the difference between the brain emulation path and > the Novamente path (much less other paths like Hawkins, etc), one has to > realize that there is a *wide* range of potentially viable paths to AGI. > What is particularly distressing is those individuals who insist on being > Novamente fanboys without pointing to any specific features that are > particularly important or unique. Ben and, for example, Richard argue in > specific details. They pretty much understand where each other stands but > disagree with some fundamental (but unprovable) assumptions on the other's > part. Personally, it seems to me that Novamente could answer Richard's > complaints with some tweaking and minor/moderate change of focus (since > Novamente is actually more a framework than an absolutely rigid design in > many ways) but that the two of them are currently more interested in being > different that working together. > > But this has gotten rather long so I should sum up . . . . Novamente has > great promise -- but part of the reason why it has such great promise is > because so much of it *hasn't* been fully determined yet. The design is > still open enough that it can be stretched to fit many things. The problem > is that stretching it in some directions may/probably will make it less > adept at other things (jack of all trades/master of none) and it may well be > (and this is my primary complaint) that it is *so* general that, while it > could serve as the basis of an AGI, it is far more complicated than > necessary to do so (just as a bird's biology is not necessary for flight). > Thus, those blindly insisting that Novamente is the be-all-and-end-all and > that all other approaches should be abandoned are not doing any of us a > service. I want to see Novamente go forward but we shouldn't put all of our > eggs in one basket. > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ________________________________ > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=64176186-587733
