Matt, On 9/9/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 9/8/08, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/7/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>The fact is that thousands of very intelligent people have been trying > >>to solve AI for the last 50 years, and most of them shared your optimism. > > >Unfortunately, their positions as students and professors at various > >universities have forced almost all of them into politically correct > >paths, substantially all of which lead nowhere, for otherwise they would > >have succeeded long ago. The few mavericks who aren't stuck in a > >university (like those on this forum) all lack funding. > > Google is actively pursuing AI and has money to spend. Maybe I am a couple of years out of date here, but the last time I looked, they were narrowly interested in search capabilities and not at all interested in linking up fragments from around the Internet, filling in missing metadata, problem solving, and the other sorts of things that are in my own area of interest. I attempted to interest them in my approaches, but got blown off apparently because they thought that my efforts were in a different direction than their interests. Have I missed something? > If you have seen some of their talks, I haven't. Are any of them available somewhere? > you know they are pursuing some basic and novel research. Outside of searching? > >>Perhaps it would be more fruitful to estimate the cost of automating the > >>global economy. I explained my estimate of 10^25 bits of memory, 10^26 > >>OPS, 10^17 bits of software and 10^15 dollars. > > You want to replicate the work currently done by 10^10 human brains. A > brain has 10^15 synapses. A neuron axon has an information rate of 10 bits > per second. As I said, you can argue about these numbers but it doesn't > matter much. An order of magnitude error only changes the time to AGI by a > few years at the current rate of Moore's Law. > > Software is not subject to Moore's Law so its cost will eventually > dominate. Here I could write a book and more. It could and should obey Moore's law, but history and common practice has gone in other directions. Starting with the Bell Labs Interpretive System on the IBM-650 and probably peaking at Remote Time Sharing in 1970, methods of bootstrapping to establish a succession of higher capabilities to grow exponentially have been known. Imagine a time sharing system with a FORTRAN/ALGOL/BASIC all rolled into one memory-resident compiler, significance arithmetic, etc., servicing many of the high schools in Seattle (including Lakeside where Bill Gates and Paul Allen learned on it), all on the equivalent of a Commodore 64. Some of the customers complained about only having 8kB of Huffman-coded macro-instructions to hold their programs, until a chess playing program that ran in that 8K that never lost a game appeared in the library. Then came the microprocessors and all this has been forgotten. Microsoft sought to "do less with less" without ever realizing that the really BIG machine they learned on (and which they still have yet to equal) was only the equivalent of a Commodore 64. I wrote that compiler and chess game. No, the primary limitation is cultural. I have discussed here how to make processors that run 10,000 times faster, and how to build a scanning UV fluorescent microscope that diagrams brains. The SAME thing blocks both - culture. Intel is up against EXACTLY the same mind block that IBM was up against when for decades they couldn't move beyond Project Stretch, and there simply isn't any area of study into which a Scanning UV fluorescence microscope now cleanly falls, of course because without the microscope, such an area of study could not develop. Things are now quite stuck until either the culture changes (don't hold your breath), or the present generations of "experts" (including us) dies off. At present, I don't expect to see any AGIs in our lifetime, though I do believe that with support, one could be developed in 10-20 years. Not until someone gives the relevant sciences a new name, stops respecting present corporate and university structure (e.g. that PhDs have any but negative value), and injects ~$10^9 to start it can this happen. Of course, this requires independent rather than corporate or university money - some rich guy who sees the light. Until I meet this guy, I'm sticking to tractable projects like Dr. Eliza. > A human brain has about 10^9 bits of knowledge, of which probably 10^7 to > 10^8 bits are unique to each individual. That makes 10^17 to 10^18 bits that > have to be extracted from human brains and communicated to the AGI. This > could be done in code or formal language, although most of it will probably > be done in natural language once this capability is developed. It would be MUCH easier and cheaper to just scan it out with something like a scanning UV fluorescent microscope. > Since we don't know which parts of our knowledge is shared, the most > practical approach is to dump all of it and let the AGI remove the > redundancies. This requires an AGI to make an AGI - a problem for the first one. > This will require a substantial fraction of each person's life time, so it > has to be done in non obtrusive ways, such as recording all of your email > and conversations (which, of course, all the major free services already > do). Note as I have been saying, the MOST important metadata does NOT appear anywhere in print. > The cost estimate of $10^15 comes by estimating the world GDP ($66 trillion > per year in 2006, increasing 5% annually) from now until we have the > hardware to support AGI. We have the option to have AGI sooner by paying > more. Simple economics suggests we will pay up to what it is worth. But, as I have challenged on this forum may times, why is it worth much of anything at all? Don't we already have enough GIs running around to not need any AGIs? I STILL don't see the general value, though I do concede that if there were AGIs, that we would find some interesting jobs for them to do. My point is that I just don't see our world as being much better with them than without them, certainly not enough better to justify the expense. Is the whole idea for us to live in virtual worlds playing virtual games while the AGIs have all the fun dealing with the more interesting real world?! Please read *The Eden Cycle* by Gallun, where this is explored in depth. Even simple Dr. Eliza has greater real-world economic prospects, and replicating specific people's consciousness shows limitless potential worth. Why even bother with AGIs? Further, I see the interest in AGIs on this forum as a sort of religious quest, that is absurd to even consider outside of Western religions. People here can't seem to see their own shitforbrains programming, yet they want to capture it in machines. The real world is painful - and wonderful. If you can't enjoy it as it now is, then you probably won't enjoy it any more with AGIs as you mess it up for everyone else (Jiri's opinions not withstanding). We NEED our problems. I see AGIs more as potential pollution than salvation. You should view the Bill Moyers series of interviews with Joseph Campbell if what I am saying here isn't completely obvious to you. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
