🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <876177886snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David@longley.demon.co.uk (David Longley) wrote:

>In article <3439451c.7302711@news.earthlink.net>
>           savainl@earthlink.net "Louis Savain" writes:
>
>> In article <875924895snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
>> David@longley.demon.co.uk (David Longley) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <34352c7c.1516199@news.earthlink.net>
>> >           savainl@earthlink.net "Louis Savain" writes:
>> >> 
>> >> .........  I think you have a somewhat pessimistic view of the power
>> >> of inductive learning.  Sure, it is a trial and error processes that
>> >> can easily give rise to superstitions, as you pointed out, but this
>> >> trial and error process should not be underestimated.  It can also be
>> >> used to send men to the moon and invent intelligent, conditionable
>> >> robots.
>> >> 
>> >> Regards,
>> >> 
>> >> Louis Savain,
>> >> 
>> >You're  correct in your first sentence - and you are also  correct  in 
>> >saying  that my view of "intelligence" is somewhat idiosyncratic.  But 
>> >that doesn't mean it's wrong of course - maybe just unfamiliar. 
>> >
>> >I suspect we, as a species, have had ANNs for many thousands of  years 
>> >- and that it was something such as the discovery of deduction  itself 
>> >(and  especially the predicate calculus quite recently) which gave  us 
>> >the  skills we regard as intelligent behaviour. Certainly I'd put  our 
>> >ability  to  get  to  the moon etc.  down  to  deduction  rather  than 
>> >induction.
>> 
>>   I agree, and as I wrote in a response to Neil Rickert, we could not
>> have discovered deduction were it not for the power of our inductive
>> learning capabilities.  In the context creating a general learning AI,
>> I believe that induction is the only process that is fundamental to
>> learning.  Our future AIs will discover deduction just like we did.
>
>My point was that there seems little point in doing so as we know 
>this  as we have already discovered deduction.

  Woah!  This sounds a little like "there is no point in making a
flying machine because birds already know how to fly."  I don't get it
David.  Why the opposition to building a learning machine?  Maybe I'm
missing something here.  Is it because they will make the same
mistakes that we make?  But so what?  Why should that be a deterrent?
What we, as a species, are looking for, are intelligent and reasonably
reliable mechanical servants, not faultless machines a la Mr. Spock.
Spock is a modern nonsensical myth, an impossible product of the same
intensional processes that you and I are so much against.  The only
way we are going to make intelligent robots is by giving them the
power to learn inductively, like babies.  There is no other way and
there's no stopping it.  It will happen no matter what and sooner than
most people think.  We can train these erring and fumbling machines
like we train humans, to do what pleases us until they are extremely
good at it, and then we'll clone these puppies by the millions or even
by the billions if it suits us.  They'll do great things for us like
cooking, farming, scientific research, exploring the solar system and
terraforming some of the other planets and moons.  And much more.  You
may enjoy having to work for a living but most people don't like it.
Most people would rather work at what they enjoy rather than for a
living.  Some don't want to work at all and I say, more power to them!
As for me, I just want to sip margaritas and pinas coladas on a
tropical beach and eat gourmet foods.  That is why I work so hard.
:-)

> Let me  illustrate 
>my point with a rerasonably well known 'joke':
>
>    'In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once  came 
>    to  him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.  
>    "What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
>    "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe."
>    "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
>    "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play"
>    Minsky shut his eyes,
>    "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
>    "So that the room will be empty."
>    At that momment, Sussman was enlightened.'

  Sorry, I don't see how this will enlighten anyone in the context of
this discussion.  Should this be seen as an argument against trying to
build an inductive learning machine?  Please enlighten me.

>[...]
>You're welcome....good luck with the research.

  David, you are a mystery wrapped up in an enigma.  How can you wish
us luck in our research (we are building *inductive* learning programs
based on causality) when you are against such an undertaking in the
first place?  Maybe I completely misunderstood your message.

Regards,

Louis Savain

President, Marengo Media, Inc.