>> Any thoughts? My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post . . . .
>> The process that we call "thinking" is VERY different in various people. Or even markedly different from one occasion to the next in the same person. I am subject to a *very*strong Seasonal Affective Disorder effect (call it seasonal-cycle manic-depression though not quite that extreme). After many years, I recognize that I think *entirely* differently in the summer as opposed to the middle of winter. >> Once they adopted an erroneous model and "stored" some information based on >> it, they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their >> lives. While true in many (and possibly the majority of cases), this is nowhere near universally true. This is like saying that you can't unlearn old, bad habits. >> Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. No. You are conflating multiple things here. Yes, we always start learning by combination -- but then we use science to weed things out. The problem is -- most people aren't good scientists or cleaners. >> Certainly, no one has suggested ANY reason to believe that the great >> ultimate AGI of the long distant future will be immune to it. I believe that, with the ability to have it's beliefs transparent and open to inspection by itself and others, the great ultimate AGI of the near future will be able to perform scientific clean-up *much* better than you can possibly imagine. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Richfield To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:54 PM Subject: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking... The process that we call "thinking" is VERY different in various people. In my own case, I was mercury poisoned (which truncates neural tubes) as a baby, was fed a low/no fat diet (which impairs myelin growth), and then at the age of 5, I had my metabolism trashed by general anesthesia (causing "brain fog"). I have since corrected my metabolic problems, I now eat LOTS of fat, and I flushed the mercury out of my system. However, the result of all of this was dramatic - I tested beyond genius in some ways (first tested at the age of 6), and below average in others. I could solve complex puzzles at lightning speed, but had the memory of an early Alzheimer's patient. However, one thing was quite clear - whatever it was that went on behind my eyeballs was VERY different from other people. No, I don't mean "better" or "worse" than others, but completely different. My horrible memory FORCED me to resort to understanding many things that other people simply remembered, as at least for me, those understandings lasted a lifetime, while my memory would probably be gone before the sun went down. This pushed me into a complex variable-model version of reality, from which I could see that nearly everyone operated from fixed models. Once they adopted an erroneous model and "stored" some information based on it, they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their lives. This apparently underlies most religious belief, as children explain the unknown in terms of God, and are then stuck with this long after they realize that neither God nor Santa Clause can exist as "conscious" entities. Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. Certainly, no one has suggested ANY reason to believe that the great ultimate AGI of the long distant future will be immune to it. Add some trusted misinformation (that we all get) and you have the makings of a system that is little better than us, other than it will have vastly superior abilities to gain superstitious learning and spout well-supported but erroneous conclusions based on it. My efforts on Dr. Eliza was to create a system that was orthogonal to our biologically-based problem solving abilities. No, it usually did NOT solve problems in the traditional way of telling the user what is broken (except in some simplistic cases where this was indeed possible), but rather it focused on just what it was that the user apparently did NOT know to have such a problem. Inform the user of whatever it is that they did not know, and their "problem" will evaporate through obviation - something subtly different than being "solved". Of course, some of that "knowledge" will be wrong, but hopefully users have the good sense to skip over "Steve's snake oil will cure all illnesses" and consider other "facts". One job I had was as the in-house computer and numerical analysis consultant for the Physics and Astronomy departments of a major university. There it gradually soaked in that the symbol manipulation of Algebra and "higher" mathematics itself made some subtle mis-assumptions that often led people astray. For example, if you have a value with some uncertainty (as all values do) through a function with a discontinuity (as many interesting functions have); when the range of uncertainty includes the discontinuity, it is pretty hard to compute any useful result. Add to this the UNLIMITED ultimate range of uncertainty of many things - the "uncertainty" being a statistical statement involving standard deviations and NOT an absolute limit, then what is the value of any computation unless you address such issues? Of course, the answer often involves many iterations to develop the "space" of results. It is the lack of presumption of these iterations in algebra and other mathematics that greatly reduces their value in solving complex real-world problems by simply giving the naive the wrong solutions to their equations. If even our mathematics is questionable, and it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to understand our world without also incorporating unrecognized superstitious learning, then just what is it that AGI is supposed to do for us? Add (or multiply) the apparent ability of some software (like an extended Dr. Eliza) to deal with things that we are really bad at (like skeptically absorbing all of human knowledge by giving the world's population a platform to explain what it is that they "know"), and it is pretty clear to me that just about any intelligent person, given such tools, will outperform any near-term conceivable AGI that lacks those tools. OK, so let's look at an AGI that has those tools. Basically, we are putting the knowledge of thousands, and perhaps millions of people into a single box. No reasonable amount of personal experience by any human or single AGI will ever be able to compete with such a vast body of knowledge. Once the knowledge is fully interrelatable so that a human can do anything with it that an AGI can do, then there should be no significant difference in problem-solving performance. OK, so how about having thousands/millions of AGIs all interrelating together, instead of having humans interrelating as with Dr. Eliza like approaches. This may indeed produce superior results - but only after we have first built a world full of AGIs. Further, I suspect that a world full of the SAME AGIs won't be nearly as powerful as a world full of DIFFERENT people, who think and see things from different points of view (something we frown at here in America). Hence, I simply do not see the impact/usefulness of any small number of AGIs that some people seem to be excited or concerned about, but instead see this a something that only people growing up in America would think valuable. Consider Iraq for a moment. Democracy absolutely REQUIRES a consensual view of reality. This simply isn't achievable in many parts of the world, and is of HIGHLY questionable value even here in America. Most Americans don't even understand and really don't care why it is that Muslims are willing to die rather than adopt our ways. Unless Sun Tsu (author of The Art of War) is completely wrong (probably for the first time), America and American's dream of AGI will be long gone before there as any opportunity to build a real AGI. I suspect that the REAL issue is that some people here just want to build their projects and play with them, regardless of whether they have any real impact on the world, and are probably annoyed by postings like this that question the potential value of such efforts. However, in doing this, you may be poisoning the well for future people who really DO want to change things, hopefully for the better. Obviously, no one here would ever invest 10 cents into a Dr. Eliza like approach, even if it involves a comparatively trivial effort and maybe promises more "value" than any foreseeable AGI, for the same reason that I am not a stone mason - it just isn't what I want to do. Any thoughts? Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com