Thats true Dave. We need that flexibility to zoom in on the details and also zoom out to see how it fits the entire scheme of things.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:15 PM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote: > Deepak, > > I think it's best not to focus on the too specific or the too general (big > picture). I get the best results when I go back and forth. Just like it is > best to go back and forth between full complexity and super simplicity, as > well as stages in between. This allows you to focus your thoughts and test > them on specifics when the problems are simple. But, when you take a look at > the big picture, you realize that your simpler solutions need to be > improved. So, you end up with a much better understanding of the whole > problem and your solutions will be applicable to more than just the specific > problems you've considered. > > Dave > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:00 AM, deepakjnath <deepakjn...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> ‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful >> servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has >> forgotten the gift.’ >> >> ‘The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a >> leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution >> comes to you and you don’t know how or why.’ >> >> — Albert Einstein >> >> We are here talking like programmers who needs to build a new system; Just >> divide the problem, solve it one by one, arrange the pieces and voila. We >> are missing something fundamentally here. That I believe has to come as a >> stroke of genius to someone. >> >> thanks, >> Deepak >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Mike Tintner >> <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: >> >>> No, Dave & I vaguely agree here that you have to start simple. To think >>> of movies is massively confused - rather like saying: "when we have created >>> an entire new electric supply system for cars, we will have solved the >>> problem of replacing gasoline" - first you have to focus just on inventing a >>> radically cheaper battery, before you consider the possibly hundreds to >>> thousands of associated inventions and innovations.involved in creating a >>> major new supply system." >>> >>> Here it would be much simpler to focus on understanding a single >>> photographic scene - or real, directly-viewed scene - of objects, rather >>> than the many thousands involved in a movie. >>> >>> In terms of language, it would be simpler to focus on understanding just >>> two consecutive sentences of a text or section of dialogue - or even as >>> I've already suggested, just the flexible combinations of two words - rather >>> than the hundreds of lines and many thousands of words involved in a movie >>> or play script. >>> >>> And even this is probably all too evolved, for humans only came to use >>> formal representations of the world v. recently in evolution. >>> >>> The general point - a massively important one - is that AGI-ers cannot >>> continue to think of AGI in terms of massively complex and evolved >>> intelligent systems, as you are doing. You have to start with the simplest >>> possible systems and gradually evolve them. Anything else is a defiance of >>> all the laws of technology - and will see AGI continuing to go absolutely >>> nowhere. >>> >>> *From:* deepakjnath <deepakjn...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 AM >>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >>> >>> Exactly my point. So if I show a demo of an AGI system that can see two >>> movies and understand that the plot of the movies are same even though they >>> are 2 entirely different movies, you would agree that we have created a true >>> AGI. >>> >>> Yes there are always lot of things we need to do before we reach that >>> level. Its just good to know the destination so that we will know it when it >>> arrives. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Tintner >>> <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: >>> >>>> Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a >>>> text - can understand any text period - can understand language, period. >>>> And >>>> you want an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand >>>> that requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly educated, >>>> hugely complex set of powers . >>>> >>>> No AI can understand a photograph of a scene, period - a crowd scene, a >>>> house by the river. Programs are hard put to recognize any objects other >>>> than those in v. standard positions. And you want an AGI that can >>>> understand >>>> a *movie*. >>>> >>>> You don't seem to realise that we can't take the smallest AGI *step* >>>> yet - and you're fantasying about a superevolved AGI globetrotter. >>>> >>>> That's why Benjamin & I tried to focus on v. v. simple tests - & they're >>>> still way too complex & they (or comparable tests) will have to be refined >>>> down considerably for anyone who is interested in practical vs sci-fi >>>> fantasy AGI. >>>> >>>> I recommend looking at Packbots and other military robots and hospital >>>> robots and the like, and asking how we can free them from their human >>>> masters and give them the very simplest of capacities to rove and handle >>>> the >>>> world independently - like handling and travelling on rocks. >>>> >>>> Anyone dreaming of computers or robots that can follow "Gone with The >>>> Wind" or become a child (real) scientist in the foreseeable future pace >>>> Ben, >>>> has no realistic understanding of what is involved. >>>> *From:* deepakjnath <deepakjn...@gmail.com> >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:04 PM >>>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >>>> >>>> Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good >>>> at doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot. >>>> >>>> One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies >>>> show to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a >>>> totally different remake of the film probably in different languages and >>>> settings. If the AGI is able to understand the sub plot and say that the >>>> story line is similar in the two movies then it could be a good test for >>>> AGI >>>> structure. >>>> >>>> The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub >>>> plots is an important requirement of AGI. >>>> >>>> Deepak >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Please explain/expound freely why you're not "convinced" - and >>>>> indicate what you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till >>>>> tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general >>>>> problem/test OR a def. of AGI. >>>>> >>>>> One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a single test - >>>>> almost by definition, there is no such thing as >>>>> >>>>> a) a single test - i.e. there should be at least a dual or serial test >>>>> - having passed any given test, like the rock/toy test, the AGI must be >>>>> presented with a new "adjacent" test for wh. it has had no preparation, >>>>> like say building with cushions or sand bags or packing with fruit. (and >>>>> neither rock/toy test state that clearly) >>>>> >>>>> b) one kind of test - this is an AGI, so it should be clear that if it >>>>> can pass one kind of test, it has the basic potential to go on to many >>>>> different kinds, and it doesn't really matter which kind of test you start >>>>> with - that is partly the function of having a good.definition of AGI . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* deepakjnath <deepakjn...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:03 PM >>>>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI >>>>> >>>>> So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really >>>>> knowing it right? >>>>> >>>>> Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of >>>>> convincing the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not >>>>> just >>>>> an advanced AI system. >>>>> >>>>> I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many >>>>> people will still be convinced I am sure. >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem >>>>> which can be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test >>>>> bench >>>>> how will we know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is >>>>> no >>>>> map. >>>>> >>>>> Deepak >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner < >>>>> tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range >>>>>> of tests of AGI. >>>>>> >>>>>> Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. >>>>>> (See archives). >>>>>> >>>>>> I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall >>>>>> from rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). >>>>>> >>>>>> However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain >>>>>> what AGI is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - >>>>>> there >>>>>> are v. few defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. >>>>>> >>>>>> The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an >>>>>> embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No >>>>>> explanation offered. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's "solves a >>>>>> variety of complex problems in a variety of complex environments". Nope, >>>>>> so >>>>>> does a multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. >>>>>> Ditto >>>>>> Pei's - something to do with "insufficient knowledge and resources..." >>>>>> "Insufficient" is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to >>>>>> mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't >>>>>> distinguish AGI from narrow AI. >>>>>> >>>>>> The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) >>>>>> is that: >>>>>> >>>>>> ** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent >>>>>> learning** >>>>>> >>>>>> i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with >>>>>> minimal guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and >>>>>> animals >>>>>> are) - and thus acquiring a "general", "all-round" range of >>>>>> intelligence.. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and >>>>>> mastering new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being >>>>>> specially programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from >>>>>> narrow >>>>>> AI's, which have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. >>>>>> Ben's >>>>>> AGI dog exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be >>>>>> able >>>>>> to learn to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs >>>>>> do - >>>>>> they can learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. >>>>>> But >>>>>> I am confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the >>>>>> distinctive AGI goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** >>>>>> which distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. >>>>>> >>>>>> [I'll stop there for interruptions/comments & continue another time]. >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Deepakjnath, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do >>>>>> not * want* an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely >>>>>> typical in this respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same >>>>>> league >>>>>> as the US banks, who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market >>>>>> tests of their assets. >>>>>> *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> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> cheers, >>>>> Deepak >>>>> *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> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> cheers, >>>> Deepak >>>> *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> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> cheers, >>> Deepak >>> *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> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> cheers, >> Deepak >> *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> > -- cheers, Deepak ------------------------------------------- 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
