Mike, On 5/14/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve, > > Like most people here I'm interested in general intelligence. You seem to > be talking mainly about specific domain intelligence - medical diagnosis - > not say, a computer or agent that will encompass many domains. >
All domains that I have looked at, including electronics repair, mechanical repair, politics, and personal relationships, all have essentially the SAME structure - figure 6 shaped cause-and-effect chains. It is just the domain-specific details that vary from one domain to the next. I like the health domain. I don't use "medical" (referring to medicines, which are seldom needed to cure illnesses) "diagnosis" (indicating a decision as to the problem, when usually no such decision is needed to effect a true cure) because it contains SO much misleading baggage. Also, an AGI with only a 5% success rate is a SPECTACULAR success with an ability to save millions of people worldwide. Further, doctors are **SO** universally incompetent as repairmen despite their domain-specific knowledge of operation, so that even crude programs can handily outperform them. > > My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some > open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute > and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the > major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has > been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great > thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user > to make his choices. > Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. > > In the same way, it would be great to have a database that could > immediately make long lists of suggestions for any given set of investment > requirements. That too would clearly have to leave the user to choose. > This is a somewhat different challenge. Most investment contests include a random selector, e.g. the blindfolded moderator throwing darts. Usually the random selector wins these contests, cor complex reasons that are just now being figured out. The same reasons that game theory solutions must end in a weighted random selection also appear to govern investment decisions. > > I'm dubious about any program here making specific recommendations/ > diagnoses - because the medical field like every other professional field is > rife with conflicting opinions about the great majority of areas/illnesses. > I think that the key is for such a program to present every view and let the user bet their life as they choose. Until you have been there and had to make a decision that would dramatically change your life no matter what the result, to live or die based on a collection of uncertainties, it is really hard to express just how this feels. Certainly, few people want a computer to make this decision for them. There are just so many problematic areas. It's almost the equivalent of a > program that would make political recommendations about how to run a > country. > Could it do worse than Bush? Present world leaders clearly have no understanding of reverse reductio ad absurdum, which as I see it is THE key to solving the really nasty political problems, e.g. the Middle East. With this understanding and a database of every political challenge in recorded history, I believe that human leadership could be eclipsed by a rather simple program, with the complexity in the data. > > I welcome your rare interest in discussing the end-problems of AGI, (as > distinct from the engineering problems) in detail - but if it's to be AGI it > has to be couched in general terms - you have to explain how your or any > approach will apply across domains. What are the common problem-solving > concepts, say, that will enable a program or agent to think and learn about > "symptoms" of "breakdown"/ "malfunction" or whatever in say, medicine/the > human body, cars/mechanics, plumbing, electrical systems, computer > hardware, nuclear power stations, "sick" plants etc. ? > The domain that is my 2nd most examined is electronic repair. There, the root cause is often something like the engineer missing an important day of classes or not reading the fine print in a component specification. This often results in a component that must perform better than specified, and which may be overloaded causing eventual failure. Rarely does the replacement of a defective component constitute a "cure" when the source of extraordinary stress remains. Determining just what sorts of design errors to look for usually starts with looking at past failures. Often a type of circuit board, of which there are several in service, will have had only a few parts ever replaced. With luck there will be repair records. Without such luck, I must spend hours inspecting every such board under a powerful magnifier to identify every part that has ever been replaced while in service. Then, I perform a design review of the circuits containing replaced components to identify just what sorts of design errors are being made. Then, armed with knowledge of what was broken behind the eyeballs of the designer, I can then proceed to finding what is wrong with the entire design by looking for other circuits with the same design problems. From this I can make out a list of likely failures, from which to choose to fix a dead board once I have seen its symptoms. OK, so how can Dr. Eliza do THIS? The list of types of common design errors isn't all that long, e.g. poor ground routing, not enough bypass caps, off-board MOS connections, different types of metal in sockets than on pins, fanin/fanout exceeded, etc. Each of these can be evaluated based on the answer to a simple question, e.g. "What sort of grounding is in use, e.g. separate layer, grid, random, etc?" Obviously, "random" points the way to a likely cause of problems. The questioning varies with the type of problem, e.g. a solid failure suggests an overloaded component, and hence grounding is probably not an issue, whereas an intermittent failure could easily involve defective grounding. In short, different data in the same database as is used to solve medical issues should work perfectly well for solving those REALLY difficult electronic repair problems. Note that I have had some experience repairing military aircraft simulators where others have failed. Imagine a half-meter-square board with 300 chips, of which 60 are custom programmed, and the wiring diagram is just a bunch of boxes with meaningless 5-letter mnemonics on the interconnections. The company that made them is out of business, there is no test setup, there is no firmware, and there is no one to ask any questions of. Most of these boards had intermittent problems that I had to find, and I could only operate them in a simulator during short scheduled tests. Yes, it IS possible to efficiently fix things like this, but only with a really sound approach. I was fixing ~1/week. An interesting observation regarding failures in people and in circuit boards: Regardless of the number of similar failures, the total time to fix all (or all but the nastiest one) is about the same regardless of the number of failures. What you learn from one becomes a help in fixing the others, e.g: 1. People come with histories, past tests, theories from past doctors, etc. Sometimes, one patient carries the key to fixing several others, sometimes NOT including the person who brings the key. 2. Circuit boards have had different past failures. Together they point the way to the problems behind their designer's eyeballs. The scariest thing is fixing just one person/board. While the total repair time is about the same as for several similar failures, the uncertainty is much higher when there is only one to fix. Also, you spend more time diagnosing and less time fixing when there is only one. Is the above discussion what you were looking for? Steve Richfield ================= > Mike, > > On 5/14/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> This is more or less where I came into this group. You've picked a, if >> not the, classic AGI problem. The problem that distinguishes it from narrow >> AI. Problematic, no right answer. And every option could often be wrong. I >> tried to open a similar problem for discussion way back - how do you invest >> in the stockmarket right now? There are an infinity of such problems. >> > > At least we are on the same page. > >> >> The problem with such problems is that you can''t program for them. >> > > But ... THAT is exactly what my Dr. Eliza program was intended to > address!!! > > Why? >> > > YES - let's dive into the presumptions that I believe are leading AGI > astray. > > Because >> > > 1) neither you nor your AGI if you have one, know the right answer. >> > > Is the operative word here "the" or "right" or "answer"? > > a) "the" is probably a misdirection, because there are probably > several "right" answers. > > b) "right" has many shades of gray, e.g. cures are greatly preferred to > treatments, and some cures/treatments are better than others. Often/usually > there is more concern for the costs of being wrong than for the benefit of > being correct. > > c) "answer" implies that the AGI is making the decision, rather than the > user. Ultimately, at least in this case, it is the caregiver who makes the > final decision where to invest their money and/or effort. > > There ain't one. In fact, every option could be wrong. >> > > Note that each of the "options" describes a complex cause-and-effect chain, > but they have some common links, e.g. the sick puppy is clearly > metabolically impaired, though whatever link leads to this link is unclear. > Further, there are a very finite number of potential links leading to > metabolic impairment (dehydration, organ malfunction, brain malfunction, > premature weaning, etc.) > > And mistakes can be expensive. >> > > Indeed, the primary initial effort is to minimize the cost of mistakes > while further information is being gathered. Here, we have kept the puppy > alive for 2 days longer than it was estimated to live, and it seems to be > getting better. Unfortunately, care has been SO careful regarding the > many hazards indicated by various theories that little additional > information has been gathered, other than the puppy probably does NOT have > really serious brain damage, because it gets up out of its bed to eliminate, > and sticks really close to one particular adult dog (his father). > > ANd you may have got things fundamentally wrong (as per the ulcer >> problem). >> > > In this case, most theories MUST be wrong because they are mutually > exclusive. > > And >> > > 2) you and your AGI are "learner-livers", so you may not only have got >> things fundamentally wrong at the domain level, but at the cross-domain, >> still deeper level of how to learn and how to solve problems generally. >> > > Hopefully, frequent updating of the problem statement being analyzed will > compensate for errors here. > > (And Bayes won't help you if your assumptions are fundamentally wrong). >> > > I think that the key here is to DO SOMETHING. Changing the situation will > act as an experiment and result in gathering more information to be placed > into the problem statement. The key is to not go too far and kill the puppy > by continuing in any particular wrong direction. Obviously, the puppy would > have been dead before the sun set if he hadn't been fed SOMETHING. His > choice of goat's milk formula over the best available puppy food tells a > LOT. > > You have to find out how to deal with these problems - and how to learn >> and solve problems generally - as you go along, and you never stop >> learning. >> > > There are SO many subtle clues that suggest cause and effect chain links. > The BIG problem with puppies over people is that you can't simply ask them > direct questions. I have been indirectly asking questions by offering the > puppy varying things to eat and drink and observing his preferences, > offering warm and cool environments to choose between, etc. > > In the case of people, really subtle clues guide this process, e.g. most > metabolic problems result in what the military calls IFF (Identification > Friend or Foe) malfunctions in the immune system, which then cause "minor" > symptoms like allergies, asthma, minor infections, etc. There may be a > really MAJOR presenting symptom like cancer or COPD (emphysema), but these > almost always go along with many minor symptoms which the patient may have > completely dismissed as a part of being quite normal. Once you know that > (for example) there is a metabolic (cellular environment) problem, the list > of usual culprits is relatively short and easy to check, and most of these > problems are easily fixed. > > Note that the medical/legal system has made this approach ILLEGAL and will > take away the medical license of any physician who does this! I have seen a > couple of very good doctors go through this process. The problem is that > doctors, and most especially the doctors on the medical quality assurance > boards, have absolutely no applicable education or experience in these > areas, and so quickly dismiss them as quackery, rather than consider the > prospect that there are some REALLY important things about which they are > completely unaware, and that they have been killing their friends and > patients for decades. > >> >> If you think you've got a way of programming - in effect, a "right way to >> live" - for problems one has - by definition - inadequate knowledge about at >> every level - and can usually *never* get adequate, definitive knowledge >> about, pray tell - with reference to your particular problem.. >> >> This is the most central question in AGI, and my experience is- everyone >> avoids it like the plague. >> > > Dr Eliza (if everyone's questionable "knowledge" had been entered into it) > would simply identify ALL of the potential cause-and-effect chain links, and > identify any cures or treatments on a link-by-link basis. The user would > concentrate on links with cures or treatments, which would > effectively ignore the vet's theories of incurable illness. Dr. Eliza would > ask more questions like what is it that the puppy does like to eat or drink > in order to separate theories, which would lead to the same experiments that > we have been doing. > > Note that if there is something non-fatal wrong with the puppy, that my > approach leads to the worst possible economic result - an UNsaleable puppy > that probably must be cared for until it dies of natural causes. The problem > with COMPLETELY logical approaches is that they assign no moral value to > decisions, even when they potentially involve euthanasia of viable > creatures. > > IMHO, the programming needed to tackle such problems is rather simple > (though the tables are definitely NOT simple), but is COMPLETELY different > than anything (else) being discussed on this board. Most postings reflect a > lack of understanding of the fine structure of real-world problems. > >> >> P.S. A psychologist would point out that you may well >> have unconsciously intended "v. sick puppy" as a metaphor for AGI :} . >> > > The sick puppy problem is a classic, and its solution is valuable. I have > been considering enhancing Dr. Eliza for failure-to-thrive puppies, which > constitute ~10% of small breed puppies. This would potentially save several > thousand dollars per year to any breeder, and has none of the usual > political problems that curing people has. > > Note in passing that I have managed to find ways around the legal minefield > in working on people. I never charge anything, but neither do I turn down > gifts, e.g. my daughter received a used BMW on her 16th birthday from one of > my patients. I precede any (rare) prescriptions with words like "please > request that your medical doctor prescribe the following:" knowing that they > will probably just order it over the Internet, etc. > > Steve Richfield > ================== > >> Steve: >> I am right now up against an "understanding" issue that might be a >> worthy foil for the present discussions. >> >> The thing to be understood: >> >> My daughter is a pug dog breeder, and considering my health interests, she >> gave me a "hopeless" case failure-to-thrive puppy to try to save ~3 days >> ago, that was apparently within hours of death upon arrival. Theories abound >> as to what the underlying problem is, so it would appear that the best >> course to success would be one that considers as many possibilities as >> possible. >> >> Saleable puppies are worth ~US$1K each, whereas UNsaleable puppies have a >> large negative value because of the great difficulties in disposition >> thereof. Therefore, extensive testing for hypothyroidism, Addison's, etc. >> have been tentatively ruled out on the theory that a puppy with such a >> problem would be worth more dead than alive, so why bother testing or >> treating such a puppy? >> >> Present theories: >> 1. The vet thinks that evidence of hydrocephalus, failure of the bones on >> the top of the skull to fuse together, may indicate a brain disorder. He >> thinks that some combination of a splitting headache and mis-wiring of the >> metabolic control system resulting from this explains everything. >> 2. I see that the puppy's temperature is running low and he greatly likes >> to sit at the outlet of an electric heater, and he looks weeks younger than >> he actually is, so perhaps his development is retarded due to a metabolic >> disorder of some sort, and the failure of the bones in his skull to fuse is >> just another part of retarded development - in short, that the vet may have >> cause and effect reversed. >> 3. My lady decided to try treating the puppy as though it were the age >> that it appeared to be - small enough to still be nursing, so she started >> feeding it a goat's milk formula, and it seems to be doing much better. >> 4. My daughter thinks everything is genetic and keeps a mental scoreboard >> of the problems with the puppies coming from each bitch. When one has had >> too many problem puppies, she neuters the bitch and sells it. >> >> Knowledge and experience would seem to favor the vet's theory. >> Unfortunately, there is no success path leading from this theory, so why >> even bother to consider it, even if it may very well be correct? >> >> My metabolic theories may be a little better, because there are ways of >> surviving with hypothyroidism, Addison's. etc. However, "success" would >> still leave a negative-value result. >> >> My lady's implied theory of slow development would, if correct, lead to >> the best result - perhaps even a new sort of mineature pug that might be of >> astronomical value as a stud. >> >> My daughter's theory, though draconian in nature, does work at the heart >> of such problems. However, where problems have hidden familial or >> environmental origins, it has the problem that it can lead to some really >> bad decisions, as neutering a good breeder reduces a ~US$5K dog to ~US$500 >> in value and eliminates the source of future ~US$1K puppies. >> >> As you can see, technical correctness of a theory ends up having secondary >> value compared with potential result. I have also seen this in automobile >> repair, where the best theory is the one with the least expensive >> correction. At least where you are wrong, the cost is minimized. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Steve Richfield >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
