Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #1383
| From | seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.ai.philosophy, comp.programming |
| Subject | Towards true A.I. (was: John McCarthy R.I.P.) |
| References | (1 earlier) <738sp4gb4v79.soj02a849hyl$.dlg@40tude.net> <qaPuq.5283$Ff3.4105@uutiset.elisa.fi> <fel5lca22zs2.15zo4xugynh4h$.dlg@40tude.net> <REM-2011nov13-005@Yahoo.Com> <1d202j8607dz7.dgimh8xoxlwo$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| Message-ID | <REM-2012mar27-003@Yahoo.Com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2012-03-27 12:25 -0700 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
DAK> We know how car functions, that is why there exist objective
DAK> features which characterize a car. These features are used as
DAK> criteria for comparison (for the properties of interest). All
DAK> this does not apply to intelligence.
REM>... in recent years it's become apparent that the brain is a
REM>... loose collection of special-purpose processors, to perform
REM>... routine data-processing functions such as visual-feature
REM>... extraction and muscle-servo, and specialized but complex
REM>... problem-solving functions such as building a model of
REM>... what's in the visual field, fitted into a longer-term model
REM>... of the entire local geography, and figuring out how to
REM>... perform navigation and hand-arm manipulation actions upon
REM>... external objects. Accordingly I believe it would be
REM>... appropriate to define classes of tasks performed by the
REM>... various processing centers of the brain, and then to try to
REM>... devise computer systems to perform each of these tasks.
> From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> Yes. A "bottom up" approach is more productive. At least it
> produces solutions for some problems. However, we still don't
> know the architecture of intelligence. The tasks we had
> identified reflect our understanding of intelligence, incomplete
> and likely wrong. We don't know in which relation these tasks are
> to general intelligence.
I'm leaning toward the view that there's no such thing as "general
intelligence", that what we appreciate in humans (and to a lesser
degree in other great apes, cetaceans, cephalopod, and some birds),
and what we thus try to measure in IQ tests, isn't a single
"general intelligence", but rather a hodge podge of specialized
types of cognitive skills. We are blind to skills that we humans
don't have, thus blind to whatever other capabilities a true
"general intelligence" would have if it existed, thus unable to
distinguish between our own hodge podge and a hypothetical "general
intelligence", because all we see of either is the intersection
between what we can see and what's actually there, namely our hodge
podge in both cases. It's analagous between humans not being able
to distinguish a 3-color photo of a flower and a true all-spectrai
view (including UV) of a flower, because we can't see what's
different, namely the presence or absence of the UV. (Insects
however *can* see the UV, so they would not confuse the two.)
> Furthermore, considering these tasks in the context of
> intelligence, it seems not so important to have a solution,
> rather the method used. For a long time it was thought, for
> example, that playing chess requires intelligence. Then the task
> was solved using a stupid machine. Arguably, solutions of this
> kind combined will never emerge into intelligence.
Humans who play a high level of Chess use a more general mental
capacity that *is* one of the components of the hodge podge of
natural human cognitive skills. But skill at playing Chess is such a
narrow specialized skill that no such general method is needed,
a "stupid machine" is sufficient.
If we knew the full capabilities of that particular skill, we might
devise a test that is much more general than just Chess, perhaps
the ability to learn any new kind of board game, and then to
self-train at such a game and get better, and also the ability to
recognize game-theoretical ideas within the natural world and human
society, such as the "war between the sexes" and diplomacy between
nations, respectively. If we could then build a computer system
that did well at this full range of game-theoretic rules-learning
and strategy-optimization, that might turn out to be a component of
A.I. rather than just a "stupid machine" algorithm.
> This is the key issue of AI: if all subtasks were solved by
> whatever means, would that result in intelligence?
If the full range of subtasks were solved by tools that were
specialized only enough to match the capabilities of the various
processing centers of the human brain, maybe yes. But if we break
down the skillset to overly-specialized skills, we'd need billions
of different programs, one per too-specific skill, and every time
we discover a new overly-specialized skill that humans can solve,
we'd have to start from scratch writing yet another program to
solve that one new skill, and it'd be a "mad queen race" between
people inventing new skills that humans can solve but the computer
can't yet solve, and people inventing special programs for the
computer to solve those new skills. Thus I agree with you if we
devise algorithms to solve too-specific skills such as Chess, but
if we instead define wide-span skill-types that match parts of the
human brain that might indeed "result in intelligence" to match
human capabilities.
> Or is intelligence rather a method than any concrete task at hand.
It's a combination of different methods, each of which can solve
one rather general kind of task, if my leaning is correct.
> ... since it is unknown what intelligence means,
The word "intelligence" means anything we define it to mean. In
some context we might define it simply to mean the ability to
operate an android with sufficient skill to pass as a human through
all the ordinary natural and social situations of a normal human
life, including moving about and socializing with humans, engaging
in intimate relationships, learning useful job skills from a
human-oriented train program and consequently performing useful
work to "earn a living", etc. In another context, when robotics
aren't yet developed well enough to make a functional android, we
might use a lesser definition whereby the "A.I." system can browse
newsgroups and compose replies that make more sense than Xah Lee.
REM> I disagree. "Jeopardy!" is already a feature that can be measured,
REM> and in fact has been measured, where the computer did quite well.
> But is it a *relevant* feature?
IMO it's a broader-span skill than expertise at Chess. IMO it
doesn't closely match one of the built-in skills of the human
brain, but I don't know whether it's a broad-enough skill to be a
component in an A.I. Maybe the underlying technology of Watson
(with minor generalization to avoid the trick
answer-before-question facade of Jeopardy, to answer several other
formats of free-language fact-lookup questions) is broad enough to
serve as a component of an A.I. that is rather non-human, or maybe
it's too narrow at all and needs a new research breakthrough to
widen it enough.
> I think that sweeping floor is a much harder problem,
I think that sweeping floor is a totally different type of skill,
not comparable to playing Jeopardy, like apples and not oranges and
not even earthworms but thermophilic sulfur bacteria. Maybe the
underlying Watson technology can be generalized to one component of
the hodge podge, and sweeping floor can be generalized to another,
and twenty more equally generalized components will suffice to
match human cognitive ability.
By the way, I expect Japanese robotics to be able to build a
floor-sweeping robot within the next ten years. But given that
automated vacuum cleaners are a better way to clean tiny debris off
the floor, and in fact automated vacuum cleaners are already nearly
consumer ready, there'll be no economic incentive to actually
produce a floor-sweeping robot, except if some major company such
as Google offers an "X prize" for it. (Aside: I learned just within
the past week that Google has offered an "X prize" for any
non-government whatever to send a robot rover to Luna.)
> much closer to general intelligence than indexing massives of texts.
Which is closer to having a complete automobile, one wheel, or one
cylinder of an engine? In fact you need to generalize the cylinder
to a complete engine, and generalize the wheel to a complete
wheel+tire+axel+driveshaft system, and also add the chassis+frame
and several other systems before you have a working car.
Indexing massives of texts may turn out to be one key part of just
one component of human intelligence.
REM> Google and Bing have been working on another test set, users'
REM> queries in their search engines, to try to present what the user
REM> really is asking about before the other keyword matches. Last I saw
REM> they haven't done a good job.
> Actually they become worse each year.
I don't have an objective test to determine if your suspicion is
correct, but I have a vague feeling you might be correct, except
the effective spelling checker built into Google's search engine
hasn't gotten noticeably worse lately, and might be getting
slightly better. The one area I've noticed is utter crap and not
getting any better is disambiguating search terms such as people's
names. I've been designing a cybernetic (mix of human and computer
components) system that will organize the various Google search
results according to the meaning of the term. For example, if you
search for "Heather Thompson" it would disambiguate that into the
several hundred people by that name, perhaps organized into a
hierarchy or a sub-search engine, and then once you have picked
*which* individual person you are looking for (the one who was
beaten by her husband, or the math professor, or the one who drove
wrecklessly on a country road, or the one who works at a bank,
etc.), it'd show you the Google search results *only* for that one
person. Watch TinyURL.Com/RLlink which will include disambiguation
and identification of individual people as the first component.
> 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. But whereas relevance (which "Heather
Thompson" are you asking about) is a matter of fact, and
truth-value is also a matter of fact (for which TinyURL.Com/TruFut
will be a useful cybernetic aid), value contributing toward your
current task-goal is a matter of opinion, *your* opinion ("you"
being the person requesting the search), because nobody else knows
what you are aiming for. You are in a bit of a dilemma. If you
publicize your entire research programme, so that Google can in
principle "read your mind" as to what relevant to your research
needs, somebody else can steal your programme and publish before
you do and thus deprive you of all your work. But if you keep the
purpose of your query confidential, Google can't even in principle
"read your mind" to know what will really help you and what will be
useless to your current need. I suppose you can play a game where
you give Google just enough clues to be able to find what's
relevant to your needs, but not enough information to be able to
steal your research programme. There several types of
back-and-forth interactive query-disambiguation systems that might
be used to guide Google towards increased relevance:
- Salton's original idea of the user scoring each search result per
relevance and then the ISR system using a sort of Bayesian
fitting of clues with relevance to add weight to some clues and
discount others.
- Wikipedia's current system of disambiguation pages.
- User manually adding additional search terms.
I suspect an A.I. system might operate both ends of the Google/User
relationship, playing role of user to suggest queries that would be
of use, playing role of Google to retrieve some information,
playing role of user to evaluate those results and thus do one of
these:
- formally rate the search results, per Salton's system;
- select a sub-category of search results, per Wikipedia's method;
- modify the query for the next round.
One thing IMDB.Com does is to assign unique terms to each person or
each movie/TVprogram/episode per disambiguation of the original
free-form search terms. Such a technique would allow an intermix of
disambiguation of terms and additional terms to refine the search.
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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