Terren wrote >>> Language understanding requires a sophisticated conceptual framework complete with causal models, because, whatever "meaning" means, it must be captured somehow in an AI's internal models of the world. <<<
Conceptual framework is not well defined. Therefore I can't agree or disagree. What do you mean with causal model? >>> The Piraha tribe in the Amazon basin has a very primitive language compared to all modern languages - it has no past or future tenses, for example - and as a people they exhibit barely any of the hallmarks of abstract reasoning that are so common to the rest of humanity, such as story-telling, artwork, religion... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people. How do you explain that? <<< In this example we observe two phenomena: 1. primitive language compared to all modern languages 2. and as a people they exhibit barely any of the hallmarks of abstract reasoning >From this we can neither conclude that 1 causes 2 nor that 2 causes 1. >>> I'm saying that if an AI understands & speaks natural language, you've solved AGI - your Nobel will be arriving soon. <<< This is just your opinion. I disagree that natural language understanding necessarily implies AGI. For instance, I doubt that anyone can prove that any system which understands natural language is necessarily able to solve the simple equation x *3 = y for a given y. And if this is not proven then we shouldn't assume that natural language understanding without hidden further assumptions implies AGI. >>> The difference between AI1 that understands Einstein, and any AI currently in existence, is much greater then the difference between AI1 and Einstein. <<< This might be true but what does this show? >>> Sorry, I don't see that, can you explain the proof? Are you saying that sign language isn't natural language? That would be patently false. (see http://crl.ucsd.edu/signlanguage/) <<< Yes. In my opinion, sign language is no natural language as it is usually understood. >>> So you're agreeing that language is necessary for self-reflectivity. In your models, then, self-reflectivity is not important to AGI, since you say AGI can be realized without language, correct? <<< No. Self-reflectifity needs just a feedback loop for own processes. I do not say that AGI can be realized without language. AGI must produce outputs and AGI must obtain inputs. For inputs and outputs there must be protocols. These protocols are not fixed but depend on the input devices on output devices. For instance the AGI could use the hubble telescope or a microscope or both. For the domain of mathematics a formal language which is specified by humans would be the best for input and output. >>> I'm not saying that language is inherently involved in thinking, but it is crucial for the development of *sophisticated* causal models of the world - the kind of models that can support self-reflectivity. Word-concepts form the basis of abstract symbol manipulation. That gets the ball rolling for humans, but the conceptual framework that emerges is not necessarily tied to linguistics, especially as humans get feedback from the world in ways that are not linguistic (scientific experimentation/tinkering, studying math, art, music, etc). <<< That is just your opinion again. I tolerate your opinion. But I have a different opinion. The future will show which approach is successful. - Matthias ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
