The notion of drawing a "flying house" based on knowledge of flying and houses is covered well in the psych literature on "conceptual blending", which many AI theorists is paid attention to. Mechanisms for blending are specifically incorporated in the OpenCogPrime design, we just haven't gotten to implementing and testing them yet, because they rely on other things that are still being worked on.
It is true that no current AI system is very good at conceptual blending. That doesn't mean that AGI theorists haven't thought deeply about the topic and don't have good ideas for addressing it. Adequate technology for implementing AGI has only very recently become available (or if I'm overoptimistic, may not yet quite be available), and working out the details of complex AGI designs via a combination of theory and experimentation just takes time and hard work. ben g On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Jim > > Yes you have misunderstood the nature of a creative problem, but no > criticism - I clearly need to spell this out v carefully - because I get > that particular misunderstanding over and over from programmers. [I'll just > answer briefly BTW because as I said, I want to do a much fuller, systematic > argument.another time] > > The central part [though not the only part of this and every creative] > problem for you and your computer and almost anyone is this: > > you have *no domain knowledge* of, and no rules for, "flying houses". > > oh yes, you know about the domain of "flying creatures" say like birds, or > "flying planes", and rules that apply to them, and you know a lot about the > domain of "houses".and rules that apply to them > > But you have no domain knowledge - no semantic network - no rules about how > to put the two together (or whether they do go together, or aren't a > contradiction in terms] - or what the result should look like, or how it > should function. Overall you have a v. *incomplete domain set.* > > And just to make life multiply difficult you don't have criteria of what a > "good" flying house is. What IS a good flying house, Jim? And what makes one > flying house better than another, because you're going to have to make such > judgments, as you consider alternative possiblities - flat roof, sloped > roof, cottage roof? Or could it be shaped like a chair? Any rules against > flying chair houses? > > And yet, you, a human being, given that problem, which you have never seen > before, and have no experience of, will have v. little difficulty crossing > those two previously uncrossed domains and making up and drawing a flying > house. (Try drawing one now) Although you will, as you go along, probably > wonder and agonise if only for a few moments about a lot of things. Wings? > Helicopter blades? Jets? Parachute? Balloon? And you'll agonise precisely > because there is NO RULEBOOK about flying houses. Anywhere. Honest Jim. And > there CAN'T be a definitive rulebook. That's life. Not logic. > > Now there is no computer anywhere in the world that can do what you can do - > which is having an incomplete domain set, and incomplete set of rules, > proceed to construct something in an altogether new domain, and make up the > rules as you go. That's the problem for - and whole challenge of - AGI. > > ----------------- > > You're kind of illustrating my central thesis of creative block - you find > it extremely difficult to concentrate on the central creative challenge of > AGI. > > What's happening, I suggest, is this: faced with that creative challenge, > you say: "hey if you just show me a flying house, and tell me how to draw > one,, I can program a computer to do that" Yes you can. I know you can. > That's called narrow AI. That's your computer basically being given the > answer to the problem before it starts and not having to find one by itself. > > But that's what you guys have done all your lives - been given the answer to > the problem, and then you just work out the details of how a computer can > execute it.. That's narrow AI. > > This is AGI - the computer has to work out the answer, and the domains, and > the rules, all by itself, WITHOUT sufficent prior instructions, WITHOUT a > nice, complete rulebook - starting with at best a v. sketchy idea of what > to do. Just like you. > > (You don't even don't know fully how to program - i.e. you're still learning > - and yet you do it). > > --- > > Oh and just to answer Matt - if you want to keep doing narrow AI, like > everyone else, then he's right - don't worry about it. Pretend it doesn't > exist. Compress things :). > > But if you want to do real AGI, then yes worry about it. A lot. Because it's > fun. And a far more exciting challenge. (Like I said, those other creative > problems, which are unquestionably real rather than fantasy, and very > abundant, have the same basic form). > > > > > > > > > > >> 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org "This is no place to stop -- half way between ape and angel" -- Benjamin Disraeli ------------------------------------------- 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
