4 ms·

Interesting. It seems most of these task target a very specific part of the brain that recognizes visual patterns. But that alone is cannot possibly be the only

Interesting. It seems most of these task target a very specific part of the brain that recognizes visual patterns. But that alone is cannot possibly be the only definition of intelligence. What about Theory of Mind which talks about the problem of multiple agents in the real world acting together? Like driving a car cannot be done right now without oodles of data or any robot - human problem that requires the robot to model human's goals and intentions. I think the problem is definition of general intelligence: Intelligence in the context of what? How much effort(kwh, $$ etc) is the human willing to amortize over the learning cycle of a machine to teach it what it needs to do and how that relates to a personally needed outcome( like build me a sandwich or construct a house)? Hopefully this should decrease over time. I believe the answer is that the only intelligence that really matters is Human-AI cooperative intelligence and our goals and whether a machine understands them. The problems then need to be framed as optimization of a multi attribute goal with the attribute weights adjusted as one learns from the human. I know a few labs working on this, one is in ASU(Kambhampati, Rao et. al) and possibly Google and now maybe open ai.

andoando 2y ago
I made another comment here saying the same thing, but visual patterns and other patterns are nonetheless spatial patterns. Audio, understanding music, or speech, rtc are things that are happening spatially, and they can just as easily be mapped as visual problems. This makes a lot of sense, as after all our senses are telling us what's happening in space-time. Take for example a simple audiotory pattern like "clap clap clap". This has a very trival mapping as visual like so: x x x - - - house house house whereas anyone would agree the sound of three equally spaced claps would not be analogous to say: aa b b b -- --- -- -- --- This ability to relate or equate two entirely different senses should clue you in that there is a deeper framework at play
- itissid 2y ago
  It's not just mapping events in space and time, it's also bringing in appropriate context and expectation of future (goals, intentions) into the present, other people's mental models into our prediction. I am not sure how abstract thinking for generalized pattern matching make it AGI to solve these kind of problems(not that they are not amazing abilities). If these ToM problems are reducible to these tasks posted by the OP then there would need to be some kind of theorem proving business to convert between the two sets of problems efficiently no?
  - andoando 2y ago
    Its not just a matter of mapping, no, but imo its a critical first step. You need a model of space-time. You need to be able to place all the facts into a spatial world following the physical laws. Take this problem, and assume you dont know a single thing about battles/military history, etc. There are two groups of men standing few hundred feet apart. It is raining, the ground is muddy. One group of men has these wooden curved sticks with a string and iron with pointy ends. The other group has people on horses, and men with very long pointy iron sticks and theyre all covered in steel plating. Who will win if they all fight against each other? There's really no correct answer but Id expect an intelligent agent to give some detailed reasoning for their decision and to infer details or possibilities and ask questions based again not on previous knowledge but what physically makes sense in the description that was given. This isnt just a matter of statistics or knowing facts like "rain, mud = heavy armored units will be slower or even trapped", "horses are fast", "bows can penetrate steel", etc. If I give you the full detailed description of the battlefield, very small details can completely change your perception. For example if I said theres big giant logs in the middle of battle, you need to reason about how horses jump, and whether it's something they can clear. You can do this barely knowing horses if you understand how animals in general move. Perhaps there is even some small difference in horses that would make you think they are capable of making large jumps whereas all the animals youve seen before cannot What Im saying is, to truly reason you need to understand spatial relations very deeply. Indeed id say spatial relations (through time) are all there is to reason about.

andoando 2y ago

I made another comment here saying the same thing, but visual patterns and other patterns are nonetheless spatial patterns. Audio, understanding music, or speech, rtc are things that are happening spatially, and they can just as easily be mapped as visual problems. This makes a lot of sense, as after all our senses are telling us what's happening in space-time. Take for example a simple audiotory pattern like "clap clap clap". This has a very trival mapping as visual like so: x x x - - - house house house whereas anyone would agree the sound of three equally spaced claps would not be analogous to say: aa b b b -- --- -- -- --- This ability to relate or equate two entirely different senses should clue you in that there is a deeper framework at play

itissid 2y ago
It's not just mapping events in space and time, it's also bringing in appropriate context and expectation of future (goals, intentions) into the present, other people's mental models into our prediction. I am not sure how abstract thinking for generalized pattern matching make it AGI to solve these kind of problems(not that they are not amazing abilities). If these ToM problems are reducible to these tasks posted by the OP then there would need to be some kind of theorem proving business to convert between the two sets of problems efficiently no?
- andoando 2y ago
  Its not just a matter of mapping, no, but imo its a critical first step. You need a model of space-time. You need to be able to place all the facts into a spatial world following the physical laws. Take this problem, and assume you dont know a single thing about battles/military history, etc. There are two groups of men standing few hundred feet apart. It is raining, the ground is muddy. One group of men has these wooden curved sticks with a string and iron with pointy ends. The other group has people on horses, and men with very long pointy iron sticks and theyre all covered in steel plating. Who will win if they all fight against each other? There's really no correct answer but Id expect an intelligent agent to give some detailed reasoning for their decision and to infer details or possibilities and ask questions based again not on previous knowledge but what physically makes sense in the description that was given. This isnt just a matter of statistics or knowing facts like "rain, mud = heavy armored units will be slower or even trapped", "horses are fast", "bows can penetrate steel", etc. If I give you the full detailed description of the battlefield, very small details can completely change your perception. For example if I said theres big giant logs in the middle of battle, you need to reason about how horses jump, and whether it's something they can clear. You can do this barely knowing horses if you understand how animals in general move. Perhaps there is even some small difference in horses that would make you think they are capable of making large jumps whereas all the animals youve seen before cannot What Im saying is, to truly reason you need to understand spatial relations very deeply. Indeed id say spatial relations (through time) are all there is to reason about.