On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
> [BTW Sloman's quote is a month old] > Are you sure it was A. Sloman who wrote or said that? From where I'm sitting it looks like it was Margaret Boden who wrote it. But then again, I am one of those people who sometimes make mistakes. Jim Bromer On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > [BTW Sloman's quote is a month old] > > I think he means what I do - the end-problems that an AGI must face. Please > name me one true AGI end-problem being dealt with by any AGI-er - apart from > the toybox problem. > > As I've repeatedly said- AGI-ers simply don't address or discuss AGI > end-problems. And they do indeed start with "solutions" - just as you are > doing - re the TSP problem and the problem of combinatorial complexity, both > of wh. have in fact nothing to do with AGI, and for neither of wh.. can you > provide a single example of a relevant AGI problem. > > One could not make up this total avoidance of the creative problem, > > And AGI-ers are not just shockingly but obscenely narrow in their > disciplinarity/ the range of their problem interests - maths, logic, > standard narrow AI computational problems, NLP, a little robotics and > that's about it - with by my rough estimate some 90% of human and > animal real world problemsolving of no interest to them. That esp. includes > their chosen key fields of language, conversation and vision - all of wh. > are much more the province of the *arts* than the sciences, when it comes to > AGI > > The fact that creative, artistic problemsolving presents a totally > different paradigm to that of programmed, preplanned problemsolving, is of > no interest to them - because they lack what educationalists would call any > kind of metacognitive (& interdisciplinary) "scaffolding" to deal with it. > > It doesn't matter that programming itself, and developing new formulae and > theorems - (all the forms IOW of creative maths, logic, programming, science > and technology) - the very problemsolving upon wh. they absolutely > depend.- also come under "artistic problemsolving". > > So there is a major need for broadening AI & AGI education both in terms of > culturally creative problemsolving and true culture-wide > multidisciplinarity. > > > > > > *From:* Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:05 PM > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman > > Both of you are wrong. (Where did that quote come from by the way. What > year did he write or say that.) > > An inadequate understanding of the problems is exactly what has to > be expected by researchers (both professional and amateurs) when they are > facing a completely novel pursuit. That is why we have endless discussions > like these. What happened over and over again in AI research is that the > amazing advances in computer technology always seemed to suggest that > similar advances in AI must be just off the horizon. And the reality is > that there have been major advances in AI. In the 1970's a critic stated > that he wouldn't believe that AI was possible until a computer was able to > beat him in chess. Well, guess what happened and guess what conclusion he > did not derive from the experience. One of the problems with critics is > that they can be as far off as those whose optimism is absurdly unwarranted. > > If a broader multi-disciplinary effort was the obstacle to creating AGI, we > would have AGI by now. It should be clear to anyone who examines the > history of AI or the present day reach of computer programming that a > multi-discipline effort is not the key to creating effective AGI. Computers > have become pervasive in modern day life, and if it was just a matter of > getting people with different kinds of interests involved, it would have > been done by now. It is a little like saying that the key to safe deep sea > drilling is to rely on the expertise of companies that make billions and > billions of dollars and which stand to lose billions by mistakes. While > that should make sense, if you look a little more closely, you can see that > it doesn't quite work out that way in the real world. > > Jim Bromer > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > >> "One of the problems of AI researchers is that too often they start off >> with an inadequate >> understanding of the *problems* and believe that solutions are only a few >> years away. We need an educational system that not only teaches techniques >> and solutions, but also an understanding of problems and their difficulty — >> which can come from a broader multi-disciplinary education. That could speed >> up progress." >> A. Sloman >> >> (& who else keeps saying that?) >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
