There is nothing visual or physical or geometric or quasi geometric about what
you're saying - no shapes or forms whatsoever to your idea of "patterns" or
"chair" or "sitting". Given an opportunity to discuss physical concretes - and
what actually physically constitutes a chair, or any other
concept/class-of-forms is fascinating and central to AGI - you retreat into
vague abstractions while claiming to be interested in visual AGI.
Fine, let's leave it there.
From: David Jones
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:12 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
:) what you don't realize is that patterns don't have to be strictly limited to
the actual physical structure.
In fact, the "chair" patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns.
The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses
probably are, and what most common effective uses are.
So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose
most likely use is for sitting based on experience.
If you think this is not a sufficient refutation of your argument, then please
don't argue with me regarding it anymore. I know your opinion and respectfully
disagree. If you don't accept my counter argument, there is no point to
continuing this back and forth ad finitum.
Dave
On Aug 8, 2010 9:29 AM, "Mike Tintner" <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
You're waffling.
You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you.
Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any
basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two.
You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do you?
Yes/no.
No. That's not "funny", that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and
through.
From: David Jones
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat
previous arguments to you.
You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts
and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems
that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them,
doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who
is really making wild assumptions?
The mere fact that you can refer to a "chair" means that it is a recognizable
pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny.
Dave
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled
as if everything was made up of matter
And "matter" is... ? Huh?
You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you
will pay a heavy price in lost time.
What are your "basic world/visual-world analytic units" wh. you are
claiming to exist?
You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty
fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be
expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for
"chair" or "table." Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the
basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable
of being expressed either as patterns or programs.
You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had
never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that
the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't
actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units
to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't
be able to do it. They don't exist.
Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call
"fundamental analysis" - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world
with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform
designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/"fundamental unit".
From: David Jones
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to
make sure these problems are addressed.
See more comments below.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make
clear why your approach is one and not the other
I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI
101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle
the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change
in design.
2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim
they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and
AGI learning?
The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you
can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it
needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and
analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to.
3) "Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about
and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what
makes it general!"
Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue.
You are only right that I haven't demonstrated it. I will address this in
the next paper and continue adding details over the next few drafts.
As a simple argument against your counter argument...
If that were true that we could not understand the world using a limited
set of rules or concepts, how is it that a human baby, with a design that is
predetermined to interact with the world a certain way by its DNA, is able to
deal with unforeseen things that were not preprogrammed? That’s right, the baby
was born with a set of rules that robustly allows it to deal with the
unforeseen. It has a limited set of rules used to learn. That is equivalent to
a limited set of “concepts” (i.e. rules) that would allow a computer to deal
with the unforeseen.
Interesting philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers'
fantasies of "take-off". You can compare it to the idea that all science can be
reduced to physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But it's
demonstrably not so.
No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if
everything was made up of matter. Oh, I forgot, that is the case :) It is a
limited set of "concepts", yet it can create everything we know.
You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the
NEW - the unfamiliar, that wh. cannot be broken down into familiar categories,
- and then find ways of dealing with it ad hoc.
You don't seem to understand that even the things you think cannot be
broken down, can be.
Dave
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
