Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Hey but it makes for an excellent quote. Facts don't have to be true if they're beautiful or funny! ;-) Sorry Eliezer, but the more famous you become, the more these types of apocryphal facts will surface... most not even vaguely true... You should be proud and happy! To quote Mr Bean 'Well, I enjoyed it anyway.' Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/07 4:38 AM Mark Waser wrote: P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-) This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even as a joke, because I understand the logic of the multiplayer iterated prisoner's dilemma - as soon as anyone defects, everyone gets hurt. Some people who did not understand the IPD, and hence could not conceive of my understanding the IPD, made jokes about that because they could not conceive of behaving otherwise in my place. But I never, ever said that, even as a joke, and was saddened but not surprised to hear it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
Ok, Panu, I agree with *your statement* below. [Meta: Now how much credit do I get for operationalizing your idea?] Panu Horsmalahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/04/07 10:42 PM Now, all we need to do is find 2 AGI designers who agree on something. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Hm. Memory may be tricking me. I did a deeper scan of my mind, and found that the only memory I actually have is that someone at the conference said that they saw I wasn't in the room that morning, and then looked around to see if there was a bomb. I have no memory of the fire thing one way or the other, but it sounds like a plausible distortion of the first event after a few repetitions. Or maybe the intended meaning is that, if I saw a fire in a room, I would leave the room first to make sure of my own safety, and then shout Fire! to warn everyone else? If so, I still don't remember saying that, but it doesn't have the same quality of being the first to defect in an iterated prisoner's dilemma - which is the main thing I feel I need to emphasize heavily that I will not do; no, not even as a joke, because talking about defection encourages people to defect, and I won't be the first to talk about it, either. So I guess the moral is that I shouldn't toss around the word absolutely - even when the point needs some heavy moral emphasis - about events so far in the past. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
On 6/5/07, Panu Horsmalahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, all we need to do is find 2 AGI designers who agree on something. My guess is that *after* people see and discuss each other's ideas, they'll be more likely to change their views and be able to synthesize them. At first we may see a few main projects each with their own followers. YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English Ogden's rules of grammar for Basic English allows people to use the 850 words to talk about things and events in the normal English way. Ogden did not put any words into Basic English that could be paraphrased with other words, and he strove to make the words work for speakers of any other language. He put his set of words through a large number of tests and adjustments. He also simplified the grammar but tried to keep it normal for English users. More recently, it has influenced the creation of Simplified English, a standardized version of English intended for the writing of technical manuals. BillK - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
On 6/5/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Meta: Now how much credit do I get for operationalizing your idea?] We can have some default fixed values for relatively-small contributions, such as the ones we're having now in this brain-storming session. I think we'll maintain a tree and linked-list hybrid data structure. AGI would be at the root. Then we allow users to add nodes like Novamente's breakdown of AGI modules into A, B, C,... and YKY's breakdown of AGI modules... etc. Also some nodes may be temporally linked, ie task A can be achieved by building X followed by Y. And we need a user interface to navigate such a tree structure. I hope we can keep it as simple as possible. Afterall, it's the AGI project(s) we should be interested in! YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Slavery (was Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model)
On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is deterministically executing a program. I suspect an AGI that executes one fixed unchangeable program is not physically possible. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Slavery (was Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model)
On 6/5/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is deterministically executing a program. I suspect an AGI that executes one fixed unchangeable program is not physically possible. What do you mean by one fixed unchangeable program? That seems nonsense to me... There's no necessary distinction between a program and its data, so that concept is useless. Ricardo - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Slavery (was Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model)
On 05/06/07, Ricardo Barreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/5/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is deterministically executing a program. I suspect an AGI that executes one fixed unchangeable program is not physically possible. What do you mean by one fixed unchangeable program? That seems nonsense to me... There's no necessary distinction between a program and its data, so that concept is useless. A function in the mathematical sense is a fixed unchangeable program. Though I'd agree that there is no distinction between program and data. I may have got interpreted the sentence incorrectly but the implication I got was that because a human supplied the program that the computer ran to be intelligent, the computer was not autonomous. Now as you have pointed out data can seen as a program, and an intelligent system is sure to have acquired its own data, what determines its behaviour and learning is not fully specified by humans, therefore it can be considered autonomous to some degree. If, however, he was referring to questions of autonomity based upon how autonomous systems cannot be made out of pieces that unthinkingly following rules, then humans to the best of our understanding would not be autonomous by this standard. So this meaning of autonomous is useless, which is why I assumed he meant the initial meaning. I would also go further than that and say that a system that can't treat what determines its external behaviour and how it learns as data, does not seem to be a good candidate for an intelligent system. Because surely one of the pillars of intelligence is self-control. We have examples of systems that are pretty good at self-control in modern PCs, however they are not suited to self-experimentation in the methods of control. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
This is the kind of control freak tendency that makes many startup ventures untenable; if you cannot give up some control (and I will grant such tendencies are not natural), you might not be the best person to be running such a startup venture. Yup, my suggestion of giving control to five or six trustworthy owners is definitely the epitome of control freak.:-) Why all the emotion? Blue sky ventures and maintaining control are pretty much in opposition to each other if you do not want to marginalize your funding opportunities. The lack of intrinsic capital is going to make things tough, because the only real currency you have *is* control. No, the real currency that I want to have is an awesome talent pool and some good demonstrable progress before we look for additional funding. I don't have a need for control. I insist upon the boundary that the AGI must be protected and not able to be used to take over the world. Yes, that is going to reduce my funding opportunities -- but it's a requirement that I'm not willing to concede and I will black-ball any trustworthy owner candidates who show *any* signs of being willing to concede it. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even as a joke Your recollection is *very* different from mine. My recollection is that you certainly did say it as a joke but that I was *rather* surprised that you would say such a thing even as a joke. If anyone else would like to chime in (since several member's of this list were in attendance) it might be interesting . . . . (or we could go back to the video since it was part of a panel that was videotaped -- if it isn't in the video, I am certainly willing to apologize but I'd be *very* puzzled since I've never had such a vivid recollection be shown to be incorrect before). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , causeand because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 11:18:49 On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English Ogden's rules of grammar for Basic English allows people to use the 850 words to talk about things and events in the normal English way. Ogden did not put any words into Basic English that could be paraphrased with other words, and he strove to make the words work for speakers of any other language. He put his set of words through a large number of tests and adjustments. He also simplified the grammar but tried to keep it normal for English users. More recently, it has influenced the creation of Simplified English, a standardized version of English intended for the writing of technical manuals. BillK - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
# 7 8 9 Money is good, but the overall AGI theory and program plan is the most important aspect. James Ratcliff YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can people rate the following things? 1. quick $$, ie salary 2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp 3. freedom to do what they want 4. fairness 5. friendly friends 6. the project looks like a winner overall 7. knowing that the project is charitable 8. special AGI features they look for (eg a special type of friendliness, pls specify) 9. a particular AGI theory 10. average level of expertise in the group 11. others? Thanks in advance, it'd be hugely helpful... =) YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Your brain can be simulated on a large/fast enough von Neumann architecture. From the behavioral perspective (which is good enough for AGI) - yes, but that's not the whole story when it comes to human brain. In our brains, information not only is and moves but also feels. It's my belief/contention that a sufficiently complex mind will be conscious and feel -- regardless of substrate. It's meaningless to take action without feelings - you are practically dead - there is just some mechanical device trying to make moves in your way of thinking. But thinking is not our goal. Feeling is. The goal is to not have goal(s) and safely feel the best forever. Feel the best forever is a hard-wired goal. What makes you feel good are hard-wired goals in some cases and trained goals in other cases. As I've said before, I believe that human beings only have four primary goals (being safe, feeling good, looking good, and being right). The latter two, to me, are clearly sub-goals but it's equally clear that some people have mistakenly raised them to the level of primary goals. If you can't, then you must either concede that feeling pain is possible for a simulated entity.. It is possible. There are just good reasons to believe that it takes more than a bunch of semiconductor based slots storing 1s and 0s. Could you specify some of those good reasons (i.e. why a sufficiently large/fast enough von Neumann architecture isn't sufficient substrate for a sufficiently complex mind to be conscious and feel -- or, at least, to believe itself to be conscious and believe itself to feel and isn't that a nasty thought twist? :-)? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
It will b e very hard at that point to hold up in court, given that the AGI must choose who gets what, cause there sure aint no precedent for a non-legal-entity like an AI for making legal decisions. Will have to have it declared a person first. James Ratcliff Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you are going to make a special set of corporate bylaws that disentangle shares from control? Hmmm... Something like: the initial trustworthy owners are given temporary trusteeship over the shares, but are then bound to distribute them according to the wishes of the AGI once the AGI passes some threshold level of intelligence?? I suppose that could work... I know the Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung (famous German newspaper) is operated by each of the 5 publishers being given trusteeship over 1/5 of the shares ... but then they pass this trusteeship along to their successors when they retire... -- Ben G On 6/3/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote::-)The ones controlling the company are that set of trustworthy owners that I mentioned before. One of the reasons why I'm not giving out intermediate options is to prevent questions/problems like this. I *do* understand pretty well how VCs think/operate and the biggest drawback is going to be that, in order to protect the AGI, we're not going to be willing to give up a majority share. - Original Message - From:Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Open AGIConsortium Because, unless they take a majority share, they want toknow who it is they're dealing with... i.e. who is controlling thecompany One of the most important things an investor looks at is THEPEOPLE who are controlling the company, and in your scheme, it is not clearwho that is... Yes, you can say I control the company even though Idon't have a controlling set of shares, but investors are not likely totrust, this, because they view financial ownership as the essence ofmotivation [since that is what motivates them, by and large] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
I did a deeper scan of my mind, and found that the only memory I actually have is that someone at the conference said that they saw I wasn't in the room that morning, and then looked around to see if there was a bomb. My memory probably was incorrect in terms of substituting fire for bomb (since the effect is much the same). Or maybe the intended meaning is that, if I saw a fire in a room, I would leave the room first to make sure of my own safety, and then shout Fire! to warn everyone else? I believe that that was indeed the context (with the probability that it was bomb instead of fire). about events so far in the past. It wasn't that long ago!:-) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Actually, information theory would argue that if the more compactness was driven by having less information due to a low transmission speed/bandwidth, then you would likely have more ambiguity (i.e. less information on the receiving side) not less. Also, there have been numerous studies comparing spoken and sign languages in terms of sentence structure. The most interesting ones (for both spoken and sign) are the ones dealing with languages that are invented by small groups who haven't been previously exposed to other languages. Unfortunately, I don't have access to specific references currently. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
My guess is that *after* people see and discuss each other's ideas, they'll be more likely to change their views Like Ben and Pei and Peter and Eliezer and Sam and Richard and . . . . ? What are you basing your guess on? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Slavery (was Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model)
Sorry, noticed that after I posted, acting autonomously given that it is acting Intelligently as well. I was assuming the existence of an AGI / intelligent machine, and being asked about the consciousness of that. An AGI that plans, reasons, and acts autonomously would be conscious. Where the actual acting of course must be measured to some degree. Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is deterministically executing a program. It appears from the discussions here that it is virtually impossible to determine if an intelligence (AGI/human) acts deterministically, so any actions that reach a certain level of complexity must be gauged to be non-deterministic, or conversely, if the AGI acts complexly enough at a level of human action, then it would be considered the autonomous. James Ratcliff Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- James Ratcliff wrote: But you haven't answered my question. How do you test if a machine is conscious, and is therefore (1) dangerous, and (2) deserving of human rights? Easily, once it acts autonomously, not based on your direct given goals and orders, when it begins acting and generating its own new goals. After that all bets are off, and its a 'being' in its own right. Not so easy. A random number generator acts autonomously, or at least appears to. A malfunctioning flight control system that refuses to obey commands from the pilot also appears to be acting autonomously, according to goals not specified by its builders. Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is deterministically executing a program. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
I think we'll maintain a tree and linked-list hybrid data structure. AGI would be at the root. Then we allow users to add nodes like Novamente's breakdown of AGI modules into A, B, C,... and YKY's breakdown of AGI modules... etc. Also some nodes may be temporally linked, ie task A can be achieved by building X followed by Y. And we need a user interface to navigate such a tree structure. I hope we can keep it as simple as possible. Afterall, it's the AGI project(s) we should be interested in! But instead, someday real soon now, you're going to realize that such a credit attribution structure *is* fundamentally isomorphic to AGI. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
As I understand it, true sign language (e.g. ASL) has its own syntax and to some extent tis own vocabulary. The slowness sign language is almost entirely in those artificial variants where there has been an attempt to transliterate the spoken language into a set of gestures. Natively signed language is at least as fast and expressive as spoken, possibly more so. I'm fairly sure the bottleneck in both cases is the mental production of the string of symbols, not their physical enactment. My operating theory, not original, is that language arose from the ability to watch another's hands and understand what they were doing. (The fact that signed language operates at native as opposed to emulated speed and breadth tends to support this.) This is the angle I'm attacking language from in Tommy -- have him interpret sequences of actions, and see what kind of mechanism that forces me to build. Josh On Tuesday 05 June 2007 05:00:49 am Bob Mottram wrote: I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
To get any further with feelings you again have to have a better definition and examples of what you are dealing with. In humans, most feelings and emotions are brought about by chemical changes in the body yes? Then from there it becomes knowledge in the brain, which we use to make decisions and react upon. Is there more to it than that? (simplified overview) Simply replacing the chemical parts with machine code easily allows an AGI to feel most of these feelings. Mechanical sensors would allow a robot to feel/sense being touched or hit, and a brain could react upon this. Even a simulated AGI virtual agent could and does indicate a prefence for Not being shot, or being in pain, and running away, and could easily show preference like/feeling for certain faces or persons it find 'appealing'. This can all be done using algorithms, and learned / preferred behavior of the bot with no mysterious 'extra' bits needed. Many people have posted and argue the ambiguous statement: But an AGI cant feel feelings. I'm not really sure what this kind of sentence means, because we cant even say that or how humans feel feelings If we can define these in some way that is devoid of all logic, and has something that an AGI CANT do, I would be interested. An AGI should be able, and will benefit from having feelings, will act reason, and believe that it has these feelings, and will give it a greater range of abilities later in its life cycle. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your brain can be simulated on a large/fast enough von Neumann architecture. From the behavioral perspective (which is good enough for AGI) - yes, but that's not the whole story when it comes to human brain. In our brains, information not only is and moves but also feels. It's my belief/contention that a sufficiently complex mind will be conscious and feel -- regardless of substrate. It's meaningless to take action without feelings - you are practically dead - there is just some mechanical device trying to make moves in your way of thinking. But thinking is not our goal. Feeling is. The goal is to not have goal(s) and safely feel the best forever. Feel the best forever is a hard-wired goal. What makes you feel good are hard-wired goals in some cases and trained goals in other cases. As I've said before, I believe that human beings only have four primary goals (being safe, feeling good, looking good, and being right). The latter two, to me, are clearly sub-goals but it's equally clear that some people have mistakenly raised them to the level of primary goals. If you can't, then you must either concede that feeling pain is possible for a simulated entity.. It is possible. There are just good reasons to believe that it takes more than a bunch of semiconductor based slots storing 1s and 0s. Could you specify some of those good reasons (i.e. why a sufficiently large/fast enough von Neumann architecture isn't sufficient substrate for a sufficiently complex mind to be conscious and feel -- or, at least, to believe itself to be conscious and believe itself to feel nasty thought twist? :-)? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 10:51:54 am Mark Waser wrote: It's my belief/contention that a sufficiently complex mind will be conscious and feel -- regardless of substrate. Sounds like Mike the computer in Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein). Note, btw, that Mike could be programmed in Loglan (predecessor of Lojban). I think a system can get arbitrarily complex without being conscious -- consciousness is a specific kind of model-based, summarizing, self-monitoring architecture. There has to be a certain system complexity for it to make any sense, but something the complexity of say Linux could be made conscious (and would work better if it were). That said, I think consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for moral agency. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 11:49:11 am Mark Waser wrote: Also, there have been numerous studies comparing spoken and sign languages in terms of sentence structure. The most interesting ones (for both spoken and sign) are the ones dealing with languages that are invented by small groups who haven't been previously exposed to other languages. The technical term for such a language is a creole. Interestingly, people do the same thing with moral ontologies and rules. There's quite a strong parallel between certain linguistic and ethical phenomena. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 12:04:21 pm Mark Waser wrote: But instead, someday real soon now, you're going to realize that such a credit attribution structure *is* fundamentally isomorphic to AGI. ... which is why it makes sense to look at architectures with a market as one of their key mechanisms -- see my book and Eric Baum's. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] PolyContextural Logics vs. General Logic
On cze 5, 2007, at 00:18, Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: Speaking of logical approaches to AGI... :-) http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/ Luk … I didn’t find any interesting in PCL It’s well know that logician research the common features of a wide variety of logics for many years: from classical Lindenbaum's extension lemma and Tarski's approaches (logic as a consequence operator or model theory which was developed via the kind of universal algebra to Suszko’s abstract logic and now Beziau’s logica universalis http://springerlink.com/content/t22665107512/? p=220ac5182a5840c696be8bc68369d81dpi=0 We are focus on the general logic in the sense of the study of common structures of logics. You can find very interesting techniques in this field: translations, embeddings, fibring, combining logics. Robert B. Lisek - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , causeand because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
And the Simple / Basic english provides for breaking up of many complex compound sentences, for shorter structures, that even without the vocabulary reduction increases the ability to parse sentences greatly. There is even a Simple English wikipedia, though it seems to lack many articles and information. James Ratcliff Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
It will b e very hard at that point to hold up in court, given that the AGI must choose who gets what, cause there sure aint no precedent for a non-legal-entity like an AI for making legal decisions. Will have to have it declared a person first. There is nothing necessary to hold up in court. The trustees/trustworthy owners are taking the action. The fact that their decision was based upon the ramblings of an AGI is entirely irrelevant as far as the legal system is concerned. There is, of course, the danger of trustee defection but I don't believe that you can legally stop that short of declaring the AGI a person and making the trustees unnecessary (and I'm not holding my breath). The entire point of the trustees is to provide the correct legal cover for the AGI. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
I think a system can get arbitrarily complex without being conscious -- consciousness is a specific kind of model-based, summarizing, self-monitoring architecture. Yes. That is a good clarification of what I meant rather than what I said. That said, I think consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for moral agency. On the other hand, I don't believe that consciousness is necessary for moral agency. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
But instead, someday real soon now, you're going to realize that such a credit attribution structure *is* fundamentally isomorphic to AGI. ... which is why it makes sense to look at architectures with a market as one of their key mechanisms -- see my book and Eric Baum's. Huh. I was doing that without realizing that I was fundamentally re-creating a simplified isomorphism of markets. What a wonderful analogical thread to pursue . . . . thank you! - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Mark Waser wrote: There is nothing necessary to hold up in court. The trustees/trustworthy owners are taking the action. The fact that their decision was based upon the ramblings of an AGI is entirely irrelevant as far as the legal system is concerned. There is, of course, the danger of trustee defection but I don't believe that you can legally stop that short of declaring the AGI a person and making the trustees unnecessary (and I'm not holding my breath). The entire point of the trustees is to provide the correct legal cover for the AGI. That sounds like a contributor lawsuit waiting to happen outside of the contributors contractually agreeing to have zero rights, and who would want to sign such a contract? Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
What distinguishes this venture from the hundreds of other ones that are frankly indistinguishable from yours? What is that killer thing that you can convincingly demonstrate you have that no one else can? Without that, your chances are poor on many different levels. I'm trying to find your unique angle here, but have come up empty so far. :-) You have no chance of finding such in what has been recently written. As I said a few e-mail previously -- There will be a massive write-up of the project in July and I'll be inviting all interested parties then. YKY's post just offered an immediate opportunity to float some of my organizational ideas to see if they'd float or sink like a rock (since I really don't want the non-project stuff to prevent people from working on the project). I'm not trying to stop you, I'm merely pointing out that it will very significantly reduce your opportunities and probably far more than you are anticipating. Either way, it won't be *my* problem. :-) I'm just trying to give you some practical perspective on the venture thing, both generally and as it pertains to AI. Understood. Let me reverse the question -- Given an absolute requirement of not letting the AGI be misused, what would you do? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Thanks. But Schank has fallen into disuse, no? The ideas re script algorithms just don't work, do they? And what I was highlighting was one possible reason - those primitives are infinitely open-ended and can be, and are, repeatedly being used in new ways. That supposedly minimally ambiguous language looks, ironically, like it's maximally ambiguous. I agree that the primitives you list are extremely important - arguably central - in the development of human language. But to my mind, and I'll have to argue this at length, and elsewhere, they show something that you might not like - the impossibility of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle them. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 04/06/2007 18:43 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a system can get arbitrarily complex without being conscious -- consciousness is a specific kind of model-based, summarizing, self-monitoring architecture. Yes. That is a good clarification of what I meant rather than what I said. That said, I think consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for moral agency. On the other hand, I don't believe that consciousness is necessary for moral agency. What a provocative statement! Isn't it indisputable that agency is necessarily on behalf of some perceived entity (a self) and that assessment of the morality of any decision is always only relative to a subjective model of rightness? In other words, doesn't the difference between it works and it's moral hinge on the role of a subjective self as actor? - Jef - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
That sounds like a contributor lawsuit waiting to happen outside of the contributors contractually agreeing to have zero rights, and who would want to sign such a contract? And there's the rub. We've gotten into a situation where it's almost literally impossible to honestly set up a venture that can't be ruined by one litigious individual. Personally, I *would* sign such a contract if I trusted that the trustworthy owners were on the up and up because I don't see how it would be used to take advantage of me other than someone, somehow getting to the AGI (and I very much value the creation of an AGI). Obviously, other people's mileage will vary tremendously. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
I think you are mis-interpreting me. I do *not* subscribe to the semantic primitives (I probably didn't put it clearly though). Just trying to answer your question re the sufficiency of 10 or so verbs. However, if you are considering any reduced vocabulary then you should be familiar with the literature/theories and *also* know why it failed. I think other people also mentioned that list readers should check old discredited approaches first and then see how your current approach is different/better. Jean-Paul Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/07 7:14 PM Thanks. But Schank has fallen into disuse, no? The ideas re script algorithms just don't work, do they? And what I was highlighting was one possible reason - those primitives are infinitely open-ended and can be, and are, repeatedly being used in new ways. That supposedly minimally ambiguous language looks, ironically, like it's maximally ambiguous. I agree that the primitives you list are extremely important - arguably central - in the development of human language. But to my mind, and I'll have to argue this at length, and elsewhere, they show something that you might not like - the impossibility of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle them. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 04/06/2007 18:43 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
Have we not decided that impossible yet? You can delay it, but not prevent it, once it hits the mainstream. The best way to delay it, is to have the smallest group, with the tightest restrictions in place, which goes against the grain of having a large mostly open groups that have been put forward. You can put all the standard mechanisms in to try to have it be friendly, but in the end, taking out those restrictions is an order much easier than putting them in place. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:What distinguishes this venture from the hundreds of other ones that are frankly indistinguishable from yours? What is that killer thing that you can convincingly demonstrate you have that no one else can? Without that, your chances are poor on many different levels. I'm trying to find your unique angle here, but have come up empty so far. :-) You have no chance of finding such in what has been recently written. As I said a few e-mail previously -- There will be a massive write-up of the project in July and I'll be inviting all interested parties then. YKY's post just offered an immediate opportunity to float some of my organizational ideas to see if they'd float or sink like a rock (since I really don't want the non-project stuff to prevent people from working on the project). I'm not trying to stop you, I'm merely pointing out that it will very significantly reduce your opportunities and probably far more than you are anticipating. Either way, it won't be *my* problem. :-) I'm just trying to give you some practical perspective on the venture thing, both generally and as it pertains to AI. Understood. Let me reverse the question -- Given an absolute requirement of not letting the AGI be misused, what would you do? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Isn't it indisputable that agency is necessarily on behalf of some perceived entity (a self) and that assessment of the morality of any decision is always only relative to a subjective model of rightness? I'm not sure that I should dive into this but I'm not the brightest sometimes . . . . :-) If someone else were to program a decision-making (but not conscious or self-conscious) machine to always recommend for what you personally (Jef) would find a moral act and always recommend against what you personally would find an immoral act, would that machine be acting morally? hopefully, we're not just debating the term agency - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] Programmed dissatisfaction
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53231/ - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
I wouldnt say discredited, though he has went off to study education more instead of AI now. Good article on Conceptual Reasoning http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/concept.shtml His SAM project was very interesting with Scripts back in '75, but for a very limited domain. My project has the ability for a KR to contain multiple scripts describing a similar event to allow reasoning and generalization of simple tasks. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it indisputable that agency is necessarily on behalf of some perceived entity (a self) and that assessment of the morality of any decision is always only relative to a subjective model of rightness? I'm not sure that I should dive into this but I'm not the brightest sometimes . . . . :-) If someone else were to program a decision-making (but not conscious or self-conscious) machine to always recommend for what you personally (Jef) would find a moral act and always recommend against what you personally would find an immoral act, would that machine be acting morally? hopefully, we're not just debating the term agency I do think its a misuse of agency to ascribe moral agency to what is effectively only a tool. Even a human, operating under duress, i.e. as a tool for another, should be considered as having diminished or no moral agency, in my opinion. Oh well. Thanks Mark for your response. - Jef - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
Have we not decided that impossible yet? You can delay it, but not prevent it, once it hits the mainstream. No, because my question deals with *before* it hits the mainstream. The best way to delay it, is to have the smallest group, with the tightest restrictions in place, which goes against the grain of having a large mostly open groups that have been put forward. Right. But the question is Is there some way to do it with a large, mostly open pool of contributors (which is why I'm restricting access to the code to need-to-know). I'm really not being stupid and wrestling with an easy issue here:-). You can put all the standard mechanisms in to try to have it be friendly, but in the end, taking out those restrictions is an order much easier than putting them in place. Agreed. Once it's released, it's got to be able to fend for itself -- but I'm currently only concerning myself about the time before that point. - Original Message - From: James Ratcliff To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium Have we not decided that impossible yet? You can delay it, but not prevent it, once it hits the mainstream. The best way to delay it, is to have the smallest group, with the tightest restrictions in place, which goes against the grain of having a large mostly open groups that have been put forward. You can put all the standard mechanisms in to try to have it be friendly, but in the end, taking out those restrictions is an order much easier than putting them in place. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What distinguishes this venture from the hundreds of other ones that are frankly indistinguishable from yours? What is that killer thing that you can convincingly demonstrate you have that no one else can? Without that, your chances are poor on many different levels. I'm trying to find your unique angle here, but have come up empty so far. :-) You have no chance of finding such in what has been recently written. As I said a few e-mail previously -- There will be a massive write-up of the project in July and I'll be inviting all interested parties then. YKY's post just offered an immediate opportunity to float some of my organizational ideas to see if they'd float or sink like a rock (since I really don't want the non-project stuff to prevent people from working on the project). I'm not trying to stop you, I'm merely pointing out that it will very significantly reduce your opportunities and probably far more than you are anticipating. Either way, it won't be *my* problem. :-) I'm just trying to give you some practical perspective on the venture thing, both generally and as it pertains to AI. Understood. Let me reverse the question -- Given an absolute requirement of not letting the AGI be misused, what would you do? This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... -- 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Slavery (was Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model)
There is a tendency among people to grant human rights to entities that are more human-like, more like yourself. For example, if you give an animal a name, it is likely to get better treatment. (We name dogs and cats, but not cows or pigs). Among humans, those who speak the same language and have the same color skin as you are going to get better treatment. (Spare me the objections. 100% of adults have some prejudice. The best you can do is to admit it). I believe we will apply similar logic to AGI. If a robot has a human face and speaks with the appearance of intelligence, you are more likely to treat it as a person than as a machine, regardless of its other attributes. Autonomy is one aspect of humanity. But, like intelligence, it is difficult to define. I pointed out how the simple definition (making its own decisions) is flawed when applied to machines. The random number generator is one example. The other example -- autonomy in a deterministic program -- deserves more explanation, because it questions whether humans are autonomous if you accept that the human brain can be simulated on a computer. The objection stems from the hardcoded belief in consciousness and free will, which the computational model denies. But to be clear, when I say that an AGI's behavior depends only on its program and its inputs, I include the possibility that the program only tells it how to learn. --- James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to Will: Sure you can make that program. Any program that has no random number generator, will always run the same based on the same input, thats a core concept of computer science. (given same input, and same database state) to Matt: For that I would need your definition of autonomy. From Wiki: Autonomy: one who gives oneself his own law) means freedom from external authority. Within these contexts it refers to the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, uncoerced decision. In robotics autonomy means independence of control. This characterization implies that autonomy is a property of the relation between two agents, in the case of robotics, of the relations between the designer and the autonomous robot. Self-sufficiency, situatedness, learning or development, and evolution increase an agents degree of autonomy., according to Rolf Pfeifer. -So this appears to be an agent that is controlling itself Now I would argue that pretty quickly an AGI that is given a control unit that does not directly answer to a human (IE google style query answer, or directly commanded bot) would have autonomy. Now there is a restriction in autonomy, given by the environment, and to a degree, always from other entities. Humans are believed to be autonomous. But we must act within the laws of physics and our environment. I choose what I am going to do next. These choices however are limited by my internal programming IE the limits and bounds of what I know how to do, and what I am able to do. An AGI that has the ability to choose its next action would be autonomous as well, though still has to act within bounds of its environment. These choices however are limited by its internal programming IE the limits and bounds of what it know how to do, and what it is able to do. I would go much FURTHER and say that a complex agent such as a race-car opponent simulator is an autonomous agent, in that within its world realm, it has free choice of what it is able to do, even though it must still act within the bounds of the environment it is in. So I would say that an AGI is as autonomous as a person is under those definitions. For the consciousness argument I would take the same route. Point to something that a conscious human can do, that an AGI could not. James Ratcliff William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney wrote: Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is deterministically executing a program. I suspect an AGI that executes one fixed unchangeable program is not physically possible. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
I do think its a misuse of agency to ascribe moral agency to what is effectively only a tool. Even a human, operating under duress, i.e. as a tool for another, should be considered as having diminished or no moral agency, in my opinion. So, effectively, it sounds like agency requires both consciousness and willful control (and this debate actually has nothing to do with moral at all). I can agree with that. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 02:47:27 pm Mark Waser wrote: list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? I think Schank's stuff was quite sound at its level but was abstract enough (at the level that it was right) to have a gap between it and the ability of the GOFAI infrastructure to implement. Note that this is a generally valid concern with quite a few of the things we need at the higher levels of organization of an AGI. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI and I still think anyone studying AGI should definitely study his approach closely. In the end any would-be AGIst (?:) will have to decide whether she adopts conceptual primitives or not - probably, apart from ideological arguments, mainly on the basis of how she decides to (have her AGI) ground its/his/her concepts (or not, as the case may be). Personally I'd say that a lot of mental acts do not reduce to his primitives easily (without losing a lot in the translation, to paraphrase a good movie:) and mental acts are quite important in my AGI architecture. Just personal opinion of course. =Jean-Paul James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/07 9:19 PM I wouldnt say discredited, though he has went off to study education more instead of AI now. Good article on Conceptual Reasoning http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/concept.shtml His SAM project was very interesting with Scripts back in '75, but for a very limited domain. My project has the ability for a KR to contain multiple scripts describing a similar event to allow reasoning and generalization of simple tasks. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
:-)A lot of the reason why I was asking is because I'm effectively somewhat (how's that for a pair of conditionals? :-) relying on Schank's approach not having any showstoppers that I'm not aware of -- so if anyone else is aware of any surprise show-stopper's in his work, I'd love to have some pointers. Thanks. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI and I still think anyone studying AGI should definitely study his approach closely. In the end any would-be AGIst (?:) will have to decide whether she adopts conceptual primitives or not - probably, apart from ideological arguments, mainly on the basis of how she decides to (have her AGI) ground its/his/her concepts (or not, as the case may be). Personally I'd say that a lot of mental acts do not reduce to his primitives easily (without losing a lot in the translation, to paraphrase a good movie:) and mental acts are quite important in my AGI architecture. Just personal opinion of course. =Jean-Paul - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do think its a misuse of agency to ascribe moral agency to what is effectively only a tool. Even a human, operating under duress, i.e. as a tool for another, should be considered as having diminished or no moral agency, in my opinion. So, effectively, it sounds like agency requires both consciousness and willful control (and this debate actually has nothing to do with moral at all). I can agree with that. Funny, I thought there was nothing of significance between our positions; now it seems clear that there is. I would not claim that agency requires consciousness; it is necessary only that an agent acts on its environment so as to minimize the difference between the external environment and its internal model of the preferred environment The perception of agency inheres in an observer, which might or might not include the agent itself. An ant (while presumably lacking self-awareness) can be seen as its own agent (promoting its own internal values) as well as being an agent of the colony. A person is almost always their own agent to some extent, and commonly seen as acting as an agent of others. A newborn baby is seen as an agent of itself, reaching for the nipple, even while it yet lacks the self-awareness to recognize its own agency. A simple robot, autonomous but lacking self-awareness is an agent promoting the values expressed by its design, and possibly also an agent of its designer to the extent that the designer's preferences are reflected in the robot's preferences. Moral agency, however, requires both agency and self-awareness. Moral agency is not about the acting but the deciding, and is necessarily over a context that includes the values of at least one other agent. This requirement of expanded decision-making context is what makes the difference between what is seen as merely good (to an individual) and what is seen as right or moral (to a group.)Morality is a function of a group, not of an individual. The difference entails **agreement**, thus decision-making context greater than a single agent, thus recognition of self in order to recognize the existence of the greater context including both self and other agency. Now we are back to the starting point, where I saw your statement about the possibility of moral agency sans consciousness as a provocative one. Can you see why? - Jef - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would not claim that agency requires consciousness; it is necessary only that an agent acts on its environment so as to minimize the difference between the external environment and its internal model of the preferred environment OK. Moral agency, however, requires both agency and self-awareness. Moral agency is not about the acting but the deciding So you're saying that deciding requires self-awareness? No, I'm saying that **moral** decision-making requires self-awareness. This requirement of expanded decision-making context is what makes the difference between what is seen as merely good (to an individual) and what is seen as right or moral (to a group.)Morality is a function of a group, not of an individual. The difference entails **agreement**, thus decision-making context greater than a single agent, thus recognition of self in order to recognize the existence of the greater context including both self and other agency. So you're saying that if you act morally without recognizing the greater context then you are not acting morally (i.e. you are acting amorally -- without morals -- as opposed to immorally -- against morals). Yes, a machine that has been programed to carry out acts which others have decided are moral, or a human who follows religious (or military) imperatives is not displaying moral agency. I would then argue that we humans *rarely* recognize this greater context -- and then most frequently act upon this realization for the wrong reasons (i.e. fear of ostracism, punishment, etc.) instead of moral reasons because realistically most of us are hard-wired by evolution to feel in accordance with most of what is regarded as moral (with the exceptions often being psychopaths). Yes! Our present-day moral agency is limited due to what we might lump under the term lack of awareness. Most of what is presently considered morality is actually only distilled patterns of cooperative behavior that worked in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, now encoded into our innate biological preferences as well as cultural artifacts such as the Ten Commandments. A more accurate understanding of morality or decision-making seen as right, and extensible beyond the EEA to our increasingly complex world might be something like the following: Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences. For the sake of brevity here I'll resist the temptation to forestall some anticipated objections. - Jef - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
A more accurate understanding of morality or decision-making seen as right, and extensible beyond the EEA to our increasingly complex world might be something like the following: Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences. OK. I would contend that a machine can be programmed to make decisions to enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences and that it can be programmed in this fashion without it attaining consciousness. You did say machine that has been programmed to carry out acts which others have decided are moral . . . is not displaying moral agency but I interpreted this as the machine merely following rules of what the human has already decided as enacting principles assessed . . . (i.e. the machine is not doing the actual morality checking itself) So . . . my next two questions are a.. Do you believe that a machine programmed to make decisions to enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences (I assume that it has/needs an awesome knowledge base and very sophisticated rules and evaluation criteria) is still not acting morally? (and, if so, why?) b.. Or, do you believe that it is not possible to program a machine in this fashion without giving it consciousness. Also, BTW, with this definition of morality, I would argue that it is a very rare human that makes moral decisions any appreciable percent of the time (and those that do have ingrained it as reflex -- so do those reflexes count as moral decisions? Or are they not moral since they're not conscious decisions at the time of choice?:-). Mark - Original Message - From: Jef Allbright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease. On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would not claim that agency requires consciousness; it is necessary only that an agent acts on its environment so as to minimize the difference between the external environment and its internal model of the preferred environment OK. Moral agency, however, requires both agency and self-awareness. Moral agency is not about the acting but the deciding So you're saying that deciding requires self-awareness? No, I'm saying that **moral** decision-making requires self-awareness. This requirement of expanded decision-making context is what makes the difference between what is seen as merely good (to an individual) and what is seen as right or moral (to a group.)Morality is a function of a group, not of an individual. The difference entails **agreement**, thus decision-making context greater than a single agent, thus recognition of self in order to recognize the existence of the greater context including both self and other agency. So you're saying that if you act morally without recognizing the greater context then you are not acting morally (i.e. you are acting amorally -- without morals -- as opposed to immorally -- against morals). Yes, a machine that has been programed to carry out acts which others have decided are moral, or a human who follows religious (or military) imperatives is not displaying moral agency. I would then argue that we humans *rarely* recognize this greater context -- and then most frequently act upon this realization for the wrong reasons (i.e. fear of ostracism, punishment, etc.) instead of moral reasons because realistically most of us are hard-wired by evolution to feel in accordance with most of what is regarded as moral (with the exceptions often being psychopaths). Yes! Our present-day moral agency is limited due to what we might lump under the term lack of awareness. Most of what is presently considered morality is actually only distilled patterns of cooperative behavior that worked in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, now encoded into our innate biological preferences as well as cultural artifacts such as the Ten Commandments. A more accurate understanding of morality or decision-making seen as right, and extensible beyond the EEA to our increasingly complex world might be something like the following: Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences. For the sake of brevity here I'll resist the temptation to forestall some anticipated objections. - Jef - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
RE: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Mark Waser writes: BTW, with this definition of morality, I would argue that it is a very rare human that makes moral decisions any appreciable percent of the time Just a gentle suggestion: If you're planning to unveil a major AGI initiative next month, focus on that at the moment. This stuff you have been arguing lately is quite peripheral to what you have in mind, except perhaps for the business model but in that area I see little compromise on more than subtle technical points. As I have begun to re-attach myself to the issues of AGI I have become suspicious of the ability or wisdom of attaching important semantics to atomic tokens (as I suspect you are going to attempt to do, along with most approaches), but I'd dearly like to contribute to something I thought had a chance. This stuff, though, belongs on comp.ai.philosophy (which is to say, it belongs unread). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Just a gentle suggestion: If you're planning to unveil a major AGI initiative next month, focus on that at the moment. I think that morality (aka Friendliness) is directly on-topic for *any* AGI initiative; however, it's actually even more apropos for the approach that I'm taking. As I have begun to re-attach myself to the issues of AGI I have become suspicious of the ability or wisdom of attaching important semantics to atomic tokens (as I suspect you are going to attempt to do, along with most approaches), but I'd dearly like to contribute to something I thought had a chance. Atomic tokens are quick and easy labels for what can be very convoluted and difficult concepts which normally end up varying in their details from person to person. We cannot communicate efficiently and effectively without such labels but unless all parties have the exact same concept (to the smallest details) attached to the same label, we are miscommunicating to the exact degree that our concepts in all their glory aren't congruent. A very important part of what I'm proposing is attempting to deal with the fact that no two humans agree *exactly* on the meaning of any but the simplest labels. Does that allay your fears somewhat? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences. Or another question . . . . if I'm analyzing an action based upon the criteria specified above but am actually taking the action that the criteria says is moral because I feel that it is in my best self-interest to always act morally -- am I still a moral agent? Mark - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences. Or another question . . . . if I'm analyzing an action based upon the criteria specified above but am actually taking the action that the criteria says is moral because I feel that it is in my best self-interest to always act morally -- am I still a moral agent? Shirley you jest. Out of respect for the gentle but slightly passive-aggressive Derek, and others who see this as excluding lots of nuts and bolts AGI stuff, I'll leave it here. If you're serious, contact me offlist and I'll be happy to expand on what it really means. - Jef - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
RE: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Mark Waser writes: I think that morality (aka Friendliness) is directly on-topic for *any* AGI initiative; however, it's actually even more apropos for the approach that I'm taking. A very important part of what I'm proposing is attempting to deal with the fact that no two humans agree *exactly* on the meaning of any but the simplest labels. Does that allay your fears somewhat? I agree that refraining from devastating humanity is a good idea :-), luckily I think we have some time before it's an imminent risk. As to my fears about your project, we can wait until July to see the details. You've done a good job of piquing interest :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] analogy, blending, and creativity
On 6/2/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And many scientists refer to potential energy surfaces and the like. There's a core of enormous representational capability with quite a few well-developed intellectual tools. Another Grand Unification theory: Estimation of Distribution Algorithms behind Bayesian Nets, Genetic Programming and unsupervised Neural Networks. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
