I think what Mike is saying is that I could draw what I think a flying house would look like, and you could look at my picture and say it was a flying house, even though neither of us has ever seen one. Therefore, AGI should be able to solve the same kind of problems, and why aren't we designing and testing AGI this way? But don't worry about it. Mike doesn't know how to solve the problem either.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [agi] [WAS The Smushaby] The Logic of Creativity > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 3:02 PM > I am reluctant to say this, but I am not sure if I actually > understand > what Mike is getting at. He described a number of logical > (in the > greater sense of being reasonable and structured) methods > by which one > could achieve some procedural goal, and then he declares > that logic > (in this greater sense that I believe acknowledged) was > incapable of > achieving it. > > Let's take a flying house. I have to say that there > was a very great > chance that I misunderstood what Mike was saying, since I > believe that > he effectively said that a computer program, using > logically derived > systems could not come to the point where it could > creatively draw a > picture of a flying house like a child might. > > If that was what he was saying then it is very strange. > Obviously, > one could program a computer to draw a flying house. So > right away, > his point must have been under stated, because that means > that a > computer program using computer logic (somewhere within > this greater > sense of the term) could follow a program designed to get > it to draw a > flying house. > > So right away, Mike's challenge can't be taken > seriously. If we can > use logical design to get the computer program to draw a > flying house, > we can find more creative ways to get it to the same point. > Do you > understand what I am saying? You aren't actually going > to challenge > me to write a rather insipid program that will draw a > flying house for > you are you? You accept the statement that I could do that > if I > wanted to right? If you do accept that statement, then you > should be > able to accept the fact that I could also write a more > elaborate > computer program to do the same thing, only it might, for > example, do > so only after the words "house" and > "flying" were input. I think you > understand that I could write a slightly more elaborate > computer > program to do the something like that. Ok, now I could > keep making it > more complicated and eventually I could get to the point > where where > it could take parts of pictures that it was exposed to and > draw them > in more creative combinations. If it was exposed to > pictures of > airplanes flying, and if it was exposed to pictures of > houses, it > might,. through quasi random experimentation try drawing a > picture of > the airplane flying past the house as if the house was an > immense > mountain, and then it might try some clouds as landscaping > for the > house and then it might try a cloud with a driveway, > garbage can and a > chimney, and eventually it might even draw a picture of a > house with > wings. All I need to do that is to use some shape > detecting > algorithms that have been developed for graphics programs > and are used > all the time by graphic artists that can approximately > determine the > shape of the house and airplane in the different pictures > and then it > would just be a matter of time before it could (and would) > try to draw > a flying house. > > Which step do you doubt, or did I completely misunderstand > you? > 1. I could (I hope I don't have to) write a program > that could draw a > flying house. > 2. I could make it slightly more elaborate so, for example, > that it > would only draw the flying house if the words > 'house' and 'flying' > were input. > 3. I could vary the program in many other ways. Now > suppose that I > showed you one of these programs. After that I could make > it more > complicated so that it went through a slightly more > creative process > than the program you saw the previous time. > 4. I could continue to make the program more and more > complicated. I > could, (with a lot of graphics techniques that I know about > but > haven't actually mastered) write the program so that if > it was exposed > to pictures of houses and to pictures of flying, would have > the > ability to eventually draw a picture of a flying house > (along with a > lot of other creative efforts that you have not) even > thought of. But > the thing is, that I can do this without using advanced AGI > techniques! > > So, I must retain the recognition that I may not have been > able to > understand you because what you are saying is not totally > reasonable > to me. > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
