Mike Tintner wrote:
Mike,
Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been
solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a
"problem of AGI", and let us list them.
1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving
problem in, a new domain)
2.Conceptualisation [Invariant Representation] - forming concept of
Madonna which can embrace rich variety of different faces/photos of her
3.Visual Object Recognition
4.Aural "Object" Recognition [dunno proper term here - being able to
recognize same melody played in any form]
5.Analogy
6.Metaphor
7.Creativity
8.Narrative Visualisation - being able to imagine and create a visual
scenario ( a movie) [just made this problem up - but it's a good one]
In your ignorance, you named a set of targets, not a set of "problems".
If you want to see these fully functioning, you will see them in the
last year of a 10-year AGI project .... but if we listed to you, the
first nine years of that project would be condemned as a complete waste
of time.
If, on the other hand, you want to see an *in* *principle* solution (an
outline of how these can all be implemented), then these in principle
solutions are all in existence. It is just that you do not know them,
and when we go to the trouble of pointing them out to you (or explaining
them to you), you do not understand them for what they are.
[By all means let's identify some more unsolved problems BTW..]
I think Ben & I more or less agreed that if he had really solved 1) - if
his pet could really independently learn to play hide-and-seek after
having been taught to fetch, it would constitute a major breakthrough,
worthy of announcement to the world. And you can be sure it would be
provoking a great deal of discussion.
As for your "discoveries,"fine, have all the self-confidence you want,
but they have had neither public recognition nor, as I understand,
publication
Okay, stop rght there.
This is a perfect example of the nonsense you utter on this list: you
know that I have published a paper on the complex systems problem
because you told me recently that you have read the paper.
But even though you have read this published paper, all you can do when
faced with the real achievement that it contains is to say that (a) you
don't understand it, and (b) this published paper that you have already
read .... has not been published!
Are there no depths to which you will not stoop?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
