| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| public:t-720-atai:atai-19:lecture_notes:understanding [2019/10/08 10:13] – [Reasoning] thorisson | public:t-720-atai:atai-19:lecture_notes:understanding [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| | But The World Is Non-Axiomatic ! | Yes. But there is no way to apply logic unless we hypothesize some pseudo-axioms. The only difference between this and mathematics is that in science we must accept that the so-called "laws" of physics may be only conditionally correct (or possibly even completely incorrect, in light of our goal of figuring out the "ultimate" truth about how the universe works). | | | But The World Is Non-Axiomatic ! | Yes. But there is no way to apply logic unless we hypothesize some pseudo-axioms. The only difference between this and mathematics is that in science we must accept that the so-called "laws" of physics may be only conditionally correct (or possibly even completely incorrect, in light of our goal of figuring out the "ultimate" truth about how the universe works). | |
| | Deduction | Results of two statements that logically are necessarily true. \\ //Example: If it's true that all swans are white, and Joe is a swan, then Joe must be white//. | | | Deduction | Results of two statements that logically are necessarily true. \\ //Example: If it's true that all swans are white, and Joe is a swan, then Joe must be white//. | |
| | Abduction | Reasoning from conclusions to causes. \\ //Example: If the light is now on, but it was off just a minute ago, someone must have flipped the switch//. \\ Note that in the reverse case different abductions may be entertained, because of the way the world works: //If the light is off now, and it was on just a minute ago, someone may have flipped the switch OR a fuse may have been blown.// | | | Abduction | Reasoning from conclusions to (likely) causes. \\ //Example: If the light is now on, but it was off just a minute ago, someone must have flipped the switch//. \\ Note that in the reverse case different abductions may be entertained, because of the way the world works: //If the light is off now, and it was on just a minute ago, someone may have flipped the switch OR a fuse may have been blown.// | |
| | Induction | Generalization from observation. \\ //Example: All the swans I have ever seen have been white, hence I hypothesize that all swans are white//. | | | Induction | Generalization from observation. \\ //Example: All the swans I have ever seen have been white, hence I hypothesize that all swans are white//. | |
| |
| | Why It Is Important | Seems to be connected to "real intelligence" - when a machine does X reliably and repeatedly we say that it is "capable" of doing X qualify it with "... but it doesn't 'really' understand what it's doing". | | | Why It Is Important | Seems to be connected to "real intelligence" - when a machine does X reliably and repeatedly we say that it is "capable" of doing X qualify it with "... but it doesn't 'really' understand what it's doing". | |
| | What Does It Mean? | No well-known scientific theory exists. \\ Normally we do not hand control of anything over to anyone who doesn't understand it. All other things being equal, this is a recipe for disaster. | | | What Does It Mean? | No well-known scientific theory exists. \\ Normally we do not hand control of anything over to anyone who doesn't understand it. All other things being equal, this is a recipe for disaster. | |
| | My Theory | Understanding involves the manipulation of causal-relational models (like we discussed in the context of the AERA AGI-aspiring architecture). | | |
| | Evaluating Understanding | Understanding any X can be evaluated along four dimensions: 1. Being able to predict X, 2. being able to achieve goals with respect to X, 3. being able to explain X, and 4. being able to "re-create" X ("re-create" here means e.g. creating a simulation that produces X and many or all its side-effects.) | | | Evaluating Understanding | Understanding any X can be evaluated along four dimensions: 1. Being able to predict X, 2. being able to achieve goals with respect to X, 3. being able to explain X, and 4. being able to "re-create" X ("re-create" here means e.g. creating a simulation that produces X and many or all its side-effects.) | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| | ====Kris' Theory of Understanding==== |
| | |
| | | What It Is | A way to talk about understanding in the context of AGI. | |
| | | Why It Is Important | Only theory of understanding in the field of AI. | |
| | | What Does It Mean? | Normally we do not hand control of anything over to anyone who doesn't understand it. All other things being equal, this is a recipe for disaster. We need to build systems that we can trust. We cannot trust an agent that doesn't understand what its doing or the context it's in. | |
| | | My Theory | Understanding involves the manipulation of causal-relational models (e.g. those in the AERA AGI-aspiring architecture). | |
| | | Phenomenon, Model | Phenomenon <m>Phi</m>: Any group of inter-related variables in the world, some or all of which can be measured.\\ Models <m>M</m>: A set of information structures that reference the variables of <m>Phi</m> and their relations <m>R</m> such that they can be used, applying processes <m>P</m> that manipulate <m>M</m>, to (a) predict, (b) achieve goals with respect to, (c ) explain, and (d) (re-)create <m>Phi</m>. | |
| | | Definition of Understanding | An agent's **understanding** of a phenomenon <m>Phi</m> to some level <m>L</m> when it posses a set of models <m>M</m> and relevant processes <m>P</m> such that it can use <m>M</m> to (a) predict, (b) achieve goals with respect to, (c ) explain, and (d) (re-)create <m>Phi</m>. Insofar as the nature of relations between variables in <m>Phi</m> determine their behavior, the level <m>L</m> to which the phenomenon <m>Phi</m> is understood by the agent is determined by the //completeness// and the //accuracy// to which <m>M</m> matches the variables and their relations in <m>Phi.</m> | |
| | | REF | [[http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~kris/ftp/AGI16_understanding.pdf|About Understanding]] by Thórisson et al. | |
| | |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | 2019(c)K.R.Thórisson \\ |
| | //EOF// |
