How could I possibly know what you missed (without extensive and tedious meta-conversation about the exchange that we just had)? You made some exaggerated statement and from that I was able to conclude that you probably missed some subtleties in my quick comments.
You cannot 'refute' an open ended statement like, 'x will lead to new thinking.' You may state an opinion about it or you might say that there is some premise in the preliminary comments which makes it unlikely. For example, I say that quantum entanglement is not actually an AI theory. You can speculate that perhaps qe might explain consciousness in some way, but that theory is not grounded in feasible engineering at this time. So, for example, there is enough wrong with the theory to be confidently dismissive of the idea that quantum entanglement will lead to new ideas in AGI in the next decade. So, if we agree to your definition of the word, 'refute' I would say that the theory that quantum entanglement will lead to new advances in AGI during the next 10 years can be refuted. (It is my opinion that can be refuted, if not by argument then by waiting 10 years and seeing what happens. I would not typically use the word 'refute' in a simple speculation of opinion, no matter how unlikely the theory that is being criticized is valid.) Jim Bromer On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:42 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > > Jim > > Not refuting your thinking, but rather the premise you proposed. At least I > stated my argument why the notion (if you are ok with that term) is > refutable. I forgot how sensitive you can be. > > So, instead of feeling slighted, why not expound on the subtleties I may have > missed? > > Rob > ________________________________ > From: Jim Bromer via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 4:47 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Growing Knowledge > > In general, you can't actually "refute" my thinking. If I made some > hypothesis which could be tested in an experiment you might refute the > hypothesis, but even that could be questioned. I would have to agree > that the experiment was a good test of my hypothesis or there would > have to be a consensus of opinion that the experiment was indeed a > good test of my hypothesis. You might also 'refute' my recollection of > some fact, especially if there was some evidence that would support > different recollections or conclusions. Rather than accepting the > nonsense that you could refute my thinking, my first guess is that you > have just missed some subtlety in the expression of my thoughts. > Jim Bromer > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:25 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via > AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > > > > Jim > > > > Bootstrapping a computational platform with domain knowledge (seeding with > > insights), was already done a few years ago by the ex head of AI research > > in France. I need to find his blogs again, but apparently he had amazing > > results with regards re-solving classical mathematical problems. > > > > Our question is; would that constitute AGI? > > > > I appreciate your comment on how such an approach would not be considered > > radical at all. However, the claim you make immediately thereafter; that > > the approach would help to think of the problem in a different way, is > > refutable. > > > > The thinking in terms of relationships suffer the same fate. Not radical, > > and not thinking in a new or different way. > > > > As such, we need to think as radically as we could possibly do. We need to > > find a few radical approaches and see if they could be focused on a few > > avenues of pragmatic research. May the best approach win. > > > > For example, instead of relationships, thinking free-will (random) > > associations. This is not a semantic ploy, but a radical departure in terms > > of AGI architecture. > > > > Furthermore, instead of thinking of seeding, rather allowing the > > computational platform to Find, Frame, Make and Share. This would denote > > another radical departure in current thinking (I did come across a similar > > approach recently). > > > > Rob > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jim Bromer via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 2:25 PM > > To: a...@listbox.com > > Subject: [agi] Growing Knowledge > > > > The idea that an AGI program has to be able to 'grow' knowledge is not > > conceptually radical but the use of the idea that a program might be > > seeded with certain kinds of insights does make me think about the > > problem in a slightly different way. By developing a program to work > > along principles that are meant to incorporate some way to build on > > the basis of insights that are provided as the program explores > > different kinds of subjects I think I might be able to see this theory > > in the terms of a transition from programming discrete instructions > > that correspond to a particular sequence of computer operations into > > programming with instructions that have a potential to grow > > relationships between the knowledge data. The kinds of relationships > > do not need to be absolutely pre-determined because the use of basic > > relationships and references to specific ideas can implicitly develop > > into more sophisticated relationships that would only need to be > > recognized. For example, an abstraction of generalization seems pretty > > fundamental to Old AI. However, I believe that just by using more > > basic relationships which can refer to other specific ideas and to > > groups of ideas, the relationships that will effectively refer to a > > kind of abstraction may develop naturally - in primitive forms. It > > would be necessary to 'teach' the AGI program to recognize and > > appreciate these abstractions so that it could then use abstraction > > more explicitly. > > Jim Bromer > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants > > + delivery options Permalink > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T032c6a46f393dbd9-M29f0205f2c44de10e9b050e0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
