From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 16:56:10 MDT
> Adequate for what? Generally, environment seems to lead to mental
> While the Net may have lots of data, it's a rather wonky world to
> live in,
> with bizarre rules. I would feel badly about an AI that
> reflexively tried to
> apply a directory structure to concepts, the same way humans try
> to organize
Visio-spatial organization is useful but also limiting, and it is only one
among very many possible ways to structure thoughts.
I think Novamente *should* be given camera eyes someday. However, I don't
think this is *necessary*, just a convenience.
Indeed, the directory structure is limited, more so than the visuospatial
world. What if an AI modeled part of its concept hierarchy on structures it
saw in chem and bio databases? A lot of interesting metaphors there....
How about weather satellite data from around the world? There is a lot more
richness of data on the Net than Web pages and directories.
I fear that you're anthropomorphizing to a large degree, assuming that the
human perceptual-manipulative environment is somehow the best one...
Maybe to an AI that grew up on the net, the spatially-limited perspective of
an individual human would seem terrifyingly, painfully limited... even
"wonky" as you say ;.>
> I think you may be right. But my question is an eventual design
> issue, not
> an initial one. I'm not arguing that environment needs to be
> included, RIGHT
> NOW. Just what level of complexity in environment is needed for
> AI to make
> it all the way to AGI?
I don't think we have any theory adequate to tell us that, it must be
determined via experiment.
> But I have an intuition that mental organization is dependent on
> and what tools the AI has to interpret that. So an AI that lives
> on the Net
> might never work at all, because of insufficient environmental feedback.
I agree, this is possible...
Or, as I suspect, it might work VERY DIFFERENTLY than humans because of VERY
DIFFERENT environmental feedback!
> Oh, and about socialization. I agree Socialization is a huge part of
> environment. But it's not neccesarily a part of explicit
> environment. I can
> talk to people who aren't next to me. And there's no reason to
> assume that
> the AI can't use chat windows either. So I left such interaction
> out of my
> exploration of the subject because it can be dealt with without physical
> representation.(or whatever the AI would call something it
> relates to as a
> 'real' object)
I think that socialization requires more than a chat window; it requires
interaction with other minds in a shared perceivable/manipulable environment
So I think that it is pretty much on a par with the other things you
Not a critical point though!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:38 MDT