Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #1482

Re: Towards true A.I.

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

REM> I'm leaning toward the view that there's no such thing as
REM> "general intelligence", that what we appreciate in humans (and
REM> to a lesser degree in other great apes, cetaceans,
REM> cephalopods, and some birds), and what we thus try to measure
REM> in IQ tests, isn't a single "general intelligence", but rather
REM> a hodge podge of specialized types of cognitive skills.

> From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> OK, call it "cognitive skills," what changed?

We can try to list most/all of those particular kinds of skills,
and then use them to define what we will call "intelligence" during
the rest of this discussion, instead of begging the question by
saying "I can't define intelligence but nevertheless I can decide
who has it and who doesn't just from my intuition, and everyone
else had better agree what is and what is not intelligence or I'll
act like any such disagreer is stupid".

> There is a minimal set of skills required to be intelligent.

SInce "intelligent" hasn't been defined up to this point, I presume
this is a skeleton of a definition of "intelligent"?

> That tells something about the way intelligence is built (a
> disparate set of skills?),

Most likely a set of low-level skills plus a set of skills that
coordinate the low-level skills. Perhaps a heirarchy that has more
than of two bottom-up levels.

> but nothing about how these skills function and what is required
> for them to work.

Right. First we state what we mean by "intelligent" or
"intelligence", i.e. how we would test whether a being is or is not
intelligent, whether a being has or has not intelligence. Then we
can try to construct algorithms that pass the test and test them
for complience with the requirements to learn whether the
algorithms have each of the required low-level skills and higher-up
coordination skills. It's analagous to specifying an Internet
protocol such as SMTP or TELNET, and then trying to write code that
implements the protocol. Or for this purpose, a set of 'Turing'
tests which an intelligent being is supposed to pass, and then the
algorithms to achieve that result. Software requirements, and then
code to implement the requirements, in that sequence.

REM> We are blind to skills that we humans don't have, thus blind
REM> to whatever other capabilities a true "general intelligence"
REM> would have if it existed, thus unable to distinguish between
REM> our own hodge podge and a hypothetical "general intelligence",
REM> because all we see of either is the intersection between what
REM> we can see and what's actually there, namely our hodge podge
REM> in both cases. It's analagous between humans not being able to
REM> distinguish a 3-color photo of a flower and a true
REM> all-spectrai view (including UV) of a flower, because we can't
REM> see what's different, namely the presence or absence of the
REM> UV. (Insects however *can* see the UV, so they would not
REM> confuse the two.)

> This is a wrong analogy. An intelligent being can create a UV
> detector and thus gain the required ability.

Are you claiming that because we can't create a
general-intelligence detector, we will forever be restricted to the
intersection of the hodge-podge-of-skills intelligence we have
ourselves and whatever a "A.I." device might have, thus forever
unable to tell whether the "A.I." device goes beyond what we have
or not?

If that's your claim, then I disagree. As we study various animals,
we will discover types of intelligence some of them have which we
do not ourselves have. Thus we will be able to devise tests for
types of intelligence that go beyond our own. If at some point we
find an algorithm for a device to "self-teach" to bootstrap a type
of intelligence that includes all of our skills and all the skills
of each of the animals we've studied, and also lots of skills that
no animal on Earth can do, with all the parts fully integrated, all
together in a single device, we may have that "Eureka!" moment when
we realize that we've invented a true "general intelligence". We
may then also develop an algorithm for generating problems to
solve, some of which humans can solve, some of which only other
animals can solve, and some of which *only* our
general-intelligence A.I. device can solve. This problem-generator
together with a rig for asking the human or animal or A.I. device
to solve each problem, could then serve as a true test of general
intelligence.

Note that to date the only skills we've tested in animals are those
which are similar to skills humans have, but I expect in the next
20 years animal-behaiour scientists will start to test "outside the
box", such as learning how whales and birds navigate thousands of
miles, how eusocial insects maintain "law and order" within the
hive, etc., and thus start to find types of intelligence we don't
yet appreciate because as snobs we aren't willing to admit that
other animals are smarter or more intelligent than we are for some
kinds of problems that stump us but which they do solve.

> Presumably there may exist things which cannot be understood
> directly or indirectly in any way in any time. Is this what you
> meant?

No, just that present we aren't thinking outside the
human-intelligence "box" so we are blind (at present) to other
forms of intelligence.

> >> I think that sweeping floor is a much harder problem,

REM> By the way, I expect Japanese robotics to be able to build a
REM> floor-sweeping robot within the next ten years. But given that
REM> automated vacuum cleaners are a better way to clean tiny
REM> debris off the floor, and in fact automated vacuum cleaners
REM> are already nearly consumer ready, there'll be no economic
REM> incentive to actually produce a floor-sweeping robot,

> Mechanics is the least problem. The actual issue is
> classification between things to remove and things to stay. A
> vacuum cleaner does it by considering dirt everything it can suck
> in. An intelligent system considers stain rather as a subject for
> more careful cleaning.

Good point. I've never seen an automated cleaning device except on
TV, mostly science programs from NHK, so I can only guess as to its
true capailities and limitations. If you have used one of them in
RL, please tell us your observations, else you're not just guessing
too. My guess is that so-far they've managed to construct an
internal model of the geography of the local environment (the
building to be cleaned) and use that model to keep track of which
regions of the floor still need to be cleaned, and navigate not
just to avoid obstacles but to make sure that each portion of the
floor gets cleaned at least once during each cleaning session.

The kind of smarter system you requested is somewhat like what I
have proposed for cleaning litter from sidewalks and gutters and
lawns and parking lots etc. There are typically lots of leaves
fallen from trees, some loose and some blown into clumps. There are
also odd bits of litter such as empty beverage cups, metal cans,
plastic bottles, etc. Ideally EVERYTHING that doesn't belong in
place would be collected, but then the various types of litter
would be separated, such as leaf litter sent to composter, aluminum
cans and plastic bottles sent to recyclers, other plastic and paper
etc. sent to incinerator, etc.

A few years ago I posted an alternate idea, that birds can be
trained to collect litter and separate the various materials, which
might be faster to develop than an A.I. system.

> >> As with an AI for sweeping floor they show unintelligence by
> >> total inability to classify content between "valuable" and "junk."
> > That's yet another dimension, after relevance to what you really
> > wanted to know about.
> An intelligent system is able to maintain a model of the world in
> which things like relevance (as well as many other things) get
> defined. Unintelligent systems are bound to a method to measure
> relevance. An intelligent system does not need that, it already
> knows what is relevant, it is itself a measurement instrument.

That remark smells like a circular definition.

Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

John McCarthy R.I.P. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-04 13:17 -0700
  Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-09 13:17 -0800
    Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-09 14:04 -0800
      Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 09:45 +0100
        Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-10 01:24 -0800
          Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 12:14 +0100
        Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-11-10 11:38 +0200
          Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 11:54 +0100
            Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-11-10 14:09 +0200
              Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 14:46 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2011-11-13 18:00 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-14 12:07 +0100
                Towards true A.I. (was: John McCarthy R.I.P.) seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-03-27 12:25 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-03-29 15:21 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-03-30 15:56 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-03-30 18:32 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-03-30 14:20 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-03-30 15:01 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-04-21 15:53 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-04-21 18:47 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-04-22 10:03 +0100
                Re: Towards true A.I. Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 04:10 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Gary Forbis <forbisgaryg@msn.com> - 2012-04-02 19:46 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-03 09:51 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. Gary Forbis <forbisgaryg@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 05:22 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-04 10:31 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-04-05 00:24 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-06 10:41 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-04-05 01:00 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-04-21 15:44 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-04-17 21:57 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-21 10:08 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-05-30 00:38 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-05-30 09:43 -0400
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-06-18 11:08 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-06-18 13:19 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-18 20:51 -0400
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-06-21 01:48 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-21 11:40 -0400
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-05-30 14:59 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-30 19:25 +0200
            Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-10 16:03 +0000
              Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-10 12:16 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-11-10 13:00 -0800
              Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 21:50 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-10 21:07 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-11 11:43 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-12 22:38 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-13 01:32 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-14 15:28 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-14 16:57 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-17 22:19 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-18 10:51 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-14 11:42 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-13 12:45 +0100
    Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-14 10:28 -0800
  Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2011-11-13 16:00 -0800

csiph-web