Re: [agi] Poll
On Friday 19 October 2007 10:36:04 pm, Mike Tintner wrote: The best way to get people to learn is to make them figure things out for themselves . Yeah, right. That's why all Americans understand the theory of evolution so well, and why Britons have such an informed acceptance of genetically-modified foods. It's why Galileo had such an easy time convincing the Church that the earth goes around the sun. It's why the Romans widely adopted the steam engine following its invention by Heron of Alexandria. It's why the Inquisition quickly realized that witchcraft is a superstition, rather than burning innocent women at the stake. The truth is exactly the opposite: Humans are built to propagate culture memetically, by copying each other; the amount we know individually by this process is orders of magnitude greater than what we could have figured out for ourselves. Reigning orthodoxy of thought is *very hard* to dislodge, even in the face of plentiful evidence to the contrary. Isaac Asimov famously said that the most exciting moment in science is when someone says, That's funny... But the reason to point it out is that it *doesn't* happen all the time, even in science (it's not normal science in Kuhn's phrase), and even less so outside of it. In the real world, when people get confused and work out a way around it, what they're learning is not an inventive synthesis of the substance at issue, but an attention filter. And that, for the average person, is usually just picking an authority figure. Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die. Humans are *stupid*, Mike. You're still committing the superhuman human fallacy. 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=8660244id_secret=55686241-899d6e
RE: [agi] evolution-like systems
Isn't one of the key concepts behind hierarchical memory (as described in Jeff Hawkins's work, the Serre paper I have cited, Rodney Books's subsumption, etc.) exactly that is builds hierarchically upon the regularities and modularities of whatever word it is learning in, acting in, and representing? Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Robert Wensman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:39 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] evolution-like systems I am not exactly sure how GA(genetic algorithm) and GP (genetic programming) is defined. It seems that the concept of gene and evolution are very much interconnected, so how we define genetic algorithm and genetic programming depends on how we define evolutionary learning, which is partially a topic of this thread. But to avoid this question and still answer your question, I could say that GA and GP needs to be pretty advanced to quell the combinatorial explosion that you speak of if it is to be used in AGI. Starting a naive evolutionary process without trying to speed things up would be pointless. It could take zillion of years to get anywhere, basically repeating the biological evolution in a computer. I believe Ben Goetzel and Novamente have some interesting points in this topic. His basic point is that a lot of necessary AGI algorithms needs to be exponential and prone to combinatorial explosions, so the key issue is to interconnect a lot of different systems so they help each other to overcome their inherent drawbacks. In their case they use a system of evolutionary learning combined with probabilistic reasoning. I have thought about another way to do the same thing, although my ideas are far from thought out. My idea is that evolutionary learning to build a world model needs to utilize the modularity of reality somehow to factorize the adaptive process. If an adaptive process is factorized, it could drastically decrease the time necessary to perform it. This is a universal phenomenon and true regardless of adaptive/learning/evolutionary algorithm. For example, the most simple adaptive process just creates a model at random, and tests whether it is correct. If a model is described using 32 bits, then the time for adaption would be in the order of 2^32. But if the model can be divided into two independent parts, the order of adaptation is only 2^16+2^16 = 2^17. Fortunately in our world, objects are somewhat independent of each other. I can rest decently assured that inner state and mechanics of my toaster, does not interfere with the inner state and mechanics of my microwave oven. This means I could hypothetically apply evolutionary learning on my toaster and microwave oven separately, and factorize the learning process in that way. In addition, in our world there seems to be classes of objects of similar design and function. If I understand the basics of a tree for example, I can apply this model to many more trees in a forrest. These regularities is also something that could be utilized to speed up adaptation, but maybe in a different way. So basically yes, making evolutionary learning work fast enough is what AGI is all about. But I do not feel that these methods to try to speed things up make it less of an evolution, at least not in my opinion. The reason I like the concept of evolutionary learning is that it implies some form of open endedness, similar to how we think the thoughts of an intellect can go in any direction. The words learning and adaptation has been too much used in narrow AI in over simplified contexts. I would like to direct a question to Ben Goetzel if he happen to read this. I am a fan of Novamente, and their ideas of quelling combinatorial explosions. But I wonder if they ever thought along the lines presented here, trying to factorize adaptation by using the modularity of reality. /Robert W 2007/10/20, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 20/10/2007, Robert Wensman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems your question stated on the meta discussion level, since that you ask for a reason why a there are two different beliefs. I can only answer for myself, but to me some form of evolutionary learning is essential to AGI. Actually, I define intelligence to be an Eco-system of ideas that compete for survival. The fitness of such ideas are determined through three aspects: The trouble with the word evolution, is that it brings to mind Darwinian evolution which is rightly dismissed as slow and random. Computational selectionist systems can be Lamarckian or the programs can learn by themselves as well as being selected, so the speed limits of Darwnian evolution do not apply. The central dogma of molecular biology also does not apply. However this does mean that you have to use systems more advanced than GA or GP to avoid the criticisms of evolutionary systems being adequate for intelligence. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Has anyone come across (or written) any papers that argue for particular low-level capabilities that any system capable of human-level intelligence must possess, and which posits particular tests for assessing whether a system possesses these prerequisites for intelligence? I'm looking for anything like this, or indeed anything that tries to lay out an incremental path toward AGI with testable benchmarks along the way. I'd be very appreciative if anyone could point me to any such work. Gabe On 10/19/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I largely agree. It's worth pointing out that Carnot published Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and established the science of thermodynamics more than a century after the first working steam engines were built. That said, I opine that an intuitive grasp of some of the important elements in what will ultimately become the science of intelligence is likely to be very useful to those inventing AGI. Yeah, most certainly However, an intuitive grasp -- and even a well-fleshed-out qualitative theory supplemented by heuristic back-of-the-envelope calculations and prototype results -- is very different from a defensible, rigorous theory that can stand up to the assaults of intelligent detractors I didn't start seriously trying to design implement AGI until I felt I had a solid intuitive grasp of all related issues. But I did make a conscious choice to devote more effort to utilizing my intuitive grasp to try to design and create AGI, rather than to creating better general AI theories Both are worthy pursuits, and both are difficult. I actually enjoy theory better. But my sense is that the heyday of AGI theorizing is gonna come after AGI experimentation has progressed a good bit further than it has today... -- Ben G -- 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=8660244id_secret=55733424-f2512b
Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses
What I'd like is a mathematical estimate of why a graphic or image (or any form of physical map) is a vastly - if not infinitely - more efficient way to store information than a set of symbols. Yo troll . . . . a graphic or image is *not* a vastly - if not infinitely - more efficient way to store information than a set of symbols. Take your own example of an outline map -- *none* of the current high-end mapping services (MapQuest, Google Maps, etc) store their maps as images. They *all* store them symbolicly in a relational database because that is *the* most efficient way to store them so that they can produce all of the different scale maps and directions that they provide every day. Congratulations! You've just disproved your prime pet theory. (or do you believe that you're smarter than all of those engineers?) And all this is important, because it will affect estimates of what brains and computers can do. What brains can do and what computers can do are very different. The brain evolved by a linear optimization process with *numerous* non-brain-related constraints because of all of the spaghetti-code-like intertwining of all the body's systems. It is quite probable that the brain can be optimized a lot! (No computer can yet store and read a map as we do, can it?) What can you do with a map that Google Maps can't? Google Maps may not store and read maps like you do, but functionally it is better than you (faster, more info, etc.). - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:33 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses Vlad et al, Slightly O/T - while you guys are arguing about how much info the brain stores and processes... What I'd like is a mathematical estimate of why a graphic or image (or any form of physical map) is a vastly - if not infinitely - more efficient way to store information than a set of symbols. Take an outline map of a country, with points for the towns. That map contains a practically endless amount of info about the relationships between all the towns and every point in the country - about how distant they all are from each other - and therefore about every possible travel route across the country. Now try expressing that info as a set of symbolic relationships - London to York 300 Miles, London to Oxford 60 Miles, London to Cardiff 200 miles - and so on and on. If you think just about the ink or whatever substrate is used to write the info, the map is vastly more efficient. And all this is important, because it will affect estimates of what brains and computers can do. A great deal of the brain's memory is stored, I suggest, in the form of maps of one kind or other. (No computer can yet store and read a map as we do, can 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/?; - 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=8660244id_secret=55735545-d56dca
Re: [agi] Poll
[...] Reigning orthodoxy of thought is *very hard* to dislodge, even in the face of plentiful evidence to the contrary. Amen, brother! Rem acu tetigisti! That's why http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html is like the small mammals scurrying beneath dinosaurs. ATM -- http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html - 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=8660244id_secret=55739919-943f4b
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
On 10/19/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.vetta.org/documents/ui_benelearn.pdf Unfortunately the test is not computable. True but how about testing intelligence by comparing the performance of an agent across several computable environments (randomly-generated finite games) to the performance of a random agent? I suspect this measure would provide a reasonable estimate of Hutter's definition and could be made arbitrarily more accurate by increasing the number and complexity of test environments. David - 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=8660244id_secret=55740663-05e954
Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses.. P.S.
On 10/20/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Images are *not* an efficient way to store data. Unless they are three-dimensional images, they lack data. Normally, they include a lot of unnecessary or redundant data. It is very, very rare that a computer stores any but the smallest image without compressing it. And remember, an image can be stored as symbols in a relational database very easily as a set of x-coords, y-coords, and colors. maps ARE symbols. Whether it's a paper street map or Google maps, they're a collection of simple symbols that represent the objects they're mapping. At the most ridiculous, each pixel on the screen is a symbol that your optic nerve detects and passes to your brain to find some meaningful correspondence to interpret. I think the point that Mark is making is that the representation (display) of data can resemble a map - but the map (or image) is only one possible interpretation of the data. There are algorithms to provide close-enough approximations of details where there is insufficient data. ex: It is unlikely that an elevation map would have a 1000 meter variance over a 2 meter gap in the data points if either side of the gap are equal elevations. That kind of 'smoothing' can not be done with images alone - there must be data. If you do have only map images, you would have to extract data from the map before you can use it effectively against other data. So why store the data in an image in the first place? Arguably, the data storage mechanism is irrelevant - there will be decisions made about performance depending on the initial acquisition and later retrieval realities: maybe a camera streams video directly to disk to achieve high throughput, then later analysis compresses the scene into a symbolic representation at less than a realtime rate. You can't really argue that the video stream is an ideal way to manage the details in a knowledgebase. (eh Mike?) - 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=8660244id_secret=55761625-a2d246
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
I guess I am mundane. I dont spend a lot of time thinking about a definition of intelligence. Goertzels is good enough for me. Instead I think in terms of what I want these machines to do -- which includes human-level: -NL understanding and generation (including discourse level) -Speech recognition and generation (including appropriate pitch and volume modulation) -Non-speech auditory recognition and generation -Visual recognition and real time video generation -World-knowledge representation, understanding and reasoning -Computer program understanding and generation -Common sense reasoning -Cognition -Context sensitivity -Automatic learning -Intuition -Creativity -Inventiveness -Understanding human nature and human desires and goals(not expecting full human-level here) -Ability to scan and store and, over time, convert and incorporate into learned deep structure vast amounts of knowledge including ultimately all available recorded knowledge To do such thinking I have come up with a fairly uniform approach to all these tasks, so I guess you could call that approach something approaching a theory of intelligence. But I mainly think of it as a theory of how to get certain really cool things done. I dont expect to get what is listed all at once, but, barring some major set back, this will probably all happen (with perhaps partial exception on the last item) within twenty years, and with the right people getting big money most of it could substantially all happen in ten. In addition, as we get closer to the threshold I think intelligence (at least from our perspective) should include: -helping make individual people, human organizations, and human government more intelligent, happy, cooperative, and peaceful -helping creating a transition into the future that is satisfying for most humans Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 1:27 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize Interesting background about on some thermodynamics history J. But basic definitions of intelligence, not talking about reinventing particle physics here, a basic, workable definition, not rigorous mathematical proof just something simple. AI, AGI cmon not asking for tooo much. In my mind it is not looking that sophisticated at the atomic level and it seems like it is VERY applicable for implementation if not required for testing. Though Hutter and Legg are apparently working diligently on this stuff and have a lot papers. John I largely agree. It's worth pointing out that Carnot published Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and established the science of thermodynamics more than a century after the first working steam engines were built. That said, I opine that an intuitive grasp of some of the important elements in what will ultimately become the science of intelligence is likely to be very useful to those inventing AGI. Yeah, most certainly However, an intuitive grasp -- and even a well-fleshed-out qualitative theory supplemented by heuristic back-of-the-envelope calculations and prototype results -- is very different from a defensible, rigorous theory that can stand up to the assaults of intelligent detractors I didn't start seriously trying to design implement AGI until I felt I had a solid intuitive grasp of all related issues. But I did make a conscious choice to devote more effort to utilizing my intuitive grasp to try to design and create AGI, rather than to creating better general AI theories Both are worthy pursuits, and both are difficult. I actually enjoy theory better. But my sense is that the heyday of AGI theorizing is gonna come after AGI experimentation has progressed a good bit further than it has today... _ 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/? 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=8660244id_secret=55773358-059800
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Regarding testing grounds for AGI. Personally I feel that ordinary computer games could provide an excellent proving ground for the early stages of AGI, or maybe even better if they are especially constructed. Computer games are usually especially designed to encourage the player towards creativity and exploration. Take a simple platform game for example, at every new stage new graphics and monsters are introduced, and in large, the player undergoes a continuous self training that last throughout the whole game. Game developers carefully distribute rewards and challenges to make this learning process as smooth as possible. But also I would like to say that given any proving ground for the first stages of AGI could be misused if AGI designers bring specialized code into their system. So if there is to be a competition for first generation AGI, there would have to be some referee that evaluates how much domain specific knowledge has been encoded to any given system. For the late development stages of AGI, where we basically have virtual human minds, then we could use so hard problems that specialized code could not help the AGI system anymore. But I guess that at that time we have basically already solved the problem of AGI, and competitions where AGI systems compete in writing essays on some subject, could only be used to polish some already outlined solution to AGI. I am a fan of Novamente, but for example when I watched the movie where they trained an AGI dog, I was left with the question about what parts of its cognition was specialization. For example, the human teacher used natural language to talk to the dog. Did the dog understand any of it, and in that case, was there any special language module involved? Also, training a dog is quite open ended, and it is difficult to assess what is progress. This shows just how difficult it is to demonstrate AGI. Any demonstration of AGI would have to support a list of what cognitive aspects are coded, and which are learnt. Only then you can understand whether it is impressive or not. Also, because we need to have firm rules about what can be pre-programmed, and what needs to be learnt, it is easier if we used some world with pretty simple mechanics. What I basically would like to see is an AGI learning to play a certain computer game, starting by learning the fundamentals, and then playing it to the end. Take an old videogame classic like The Legend of Zelda. http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/zelda/. I know a lot of you would say that this is a far to simplistic world for training an AGI, but not if you prohibit ANY pre-programmed knowledge. You only allow the AGI system to start with proto-knowledge representation, and basically hard-wire the in-game rewards and punishemnts to the goal of the AGI. The AGI system would then have to learn basic concepts such as: objects moving around on the screen which graphics correspond to yourself walls where you can go keys that opens doors the concept of coming to a new screen when walking of the edge of one how screens relate to each other teleportation (the flute for anyone who remembers) If the AGI system then can learn to play the game to the end and slay Ganon based on only proto-knowledge, then maybe we have some interesting going on. Such an AGI could maybe be compared to a rodent running in a maze, even if the motoric and vision system are more complicated. Then we are ready to increase the complexity of the computer game, adding communication with other characters, more complex concepts and puzzles, more dimensions, more motorics etc.. Basically, I would like to se Novamente and similar AGI systems play some goal oriented computer game, since AGI in itself needs to be goal oriented. /R 2007/10/20, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I largely agree. It's worth pointing out that Carnot published Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and established the science of thermodynamics more than a century after the first working steam engines were built. That said, I opine that an intuitive grasp of some of the important elements in what will ultimately become the science of intelligence is likely to be very useful to those inventing AGI. Yeah, most certainly However, an intuitive grasp -- and even a well-fleshed-out qualitative theory supplemented by heuristic back-of-the-envelope calculations and prototype results -- is very different from a defensible, rigorous theory that can stand up to the assaults of intelligent detractors I didn't start seriously trying to design implement AGI until I felt I had a solid intuitive grasp of all related issues. But I did make a conscious choice to devote more effort to utilizing my intuitive grasp to try to design and create AGI, rather than to creating better general AI theories Both are worthy pursuits, and both are difficult. I actually enjoy theory better. But my sense is that the heyday of AGI
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
No you are not mundane. All these things on the list (or most) are very well to be expected from a generally intelligent system or its derivatives. But I have this urge, being a software developer, to smash all these things up into their constituent components, partition commonalties, eliminate dupes, and perhaps further smash up into an atomic representation of intelligence as little intelligent engines that can be combined in various ways to build higher level functions. Kind of like a cellular automata approach and perhaps CA structures can be used. I really don't want to waste 10 years developing a giant piece of bloatage code that never fully works. Better to exhaust all possibilities in the mind and on paper as much as possible as software dev can be a giant PIA mess if not thought out beforehand as much as possible. Yes you can go so far before doing prototyping and testing but certain prototypes can take many months to build. Several on this email list have already gotten to this point and it may be more productive digesting their systems instead of reinventing. Even so that leaves many questions open about testing. Someone can claim they have AGI but how do you really know, could be just a highly sophisticated chatterbot. John From: Edward W. Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess I am mundane. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about a definition of intelligence. Goertzel's is good enough for me. Instead I think in terms of what I want these machines to do -- which includes human-level: -NL understanding and generation (including discourse level) -Speech recognition and generation (including appropriate pitch and volume modulation) -Non-speech auditory recognition and generation -Visual recognition and real time video generation -World-knowledge representation, understanding and reasoning -Computer program understanding and generation -Common sense reasoning -Cognition -Context sensitivity -Automatic learning -Intuition -Creativity -Inventiveness -Understanding human nature and human desires and goals(not expecting full human-level here) -Ability to scan and store and, over time, convert and incorporate into learned deep structure vast amounts of knowledge including ultimately all available recorded knowledge . To do such thinking I have come up with a fairly uniform approach to all these tasks, so I guess you could call that approach something approaching a theory of intelligence. But I mainly think of it as a theory of how to get certain really cool things done. I don't expect to get what is listed all at once, but, barring some major set back, this will probably all happen (with perhaps partial exception on the last item) within twenty years, and with the right people getting big money most of it could substantially all happen in ten. In addition, as we get closer to the threshold I think intelligence (at least from our perspective) should include: -helping make individual people, human organizations, and human government more intelligent, happy, cooperative, and peaceful -helping creating a transition into the future that is satisfying for most humans Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [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=8660244id_secret=55777112-33cf1e
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Well I'm neck deep in 55,000 semi-colons of code in this AI app I'm building and need to get this bastich out the do' and it's probably going to grow to 80,000 before version 1.0. But at some point it needs to grow a brain. Yes I have my AGI design in mind since late 90's and had been watching what would happen with Intelligenesis. I particularly think along the lines of an abstract algebra based engine basically an algebraic structure pump. Everything is sets and operators with probability glue, a lot of SOM and AI sensory. But recent ideas in category theory are molding it and CA's are always rearing their tiny little heads.. But spending time digesting Novamente theory and then general AGI structure that's valuable. Things like - graph storage indexing methodology - really need to spend some time on that especially learning from the people with experience. John From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, So rather than a definition of intelligence you want a recipe for how to make a one? Goertzel's descriptions of Novamente in his two recent books are the closest, publicly-available approximation of that of which I currently know. Actually my book on how to build an AGI are not publicly available at this point ... but I'm strongly leaning toward making them so ... it's mostly just a matter of finding time to proofread them, remove obsolete ideas, etc. and generally turn them from draft manuscripts into finalized manuscripts. I have already let a bunch of people read the drafts... Of course, a problem with putting material like this in dead-tree form is that the ideas are evolving. We learn new stuff as we proceed through implementing the stuff in the books But the basic framework (knowledge rep, algorithms, cognitive architecture, teaching methodology) has not changed as we've proceed through the work so far, just some of the details (wherein the devil famously lies ;-) - 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=8660244id_secret=55787440-e8ac33
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Ah, gotcha... The recent book Advances in Artificial General Intelligence gives a bunch more detail than those, actually (though not as much of the conceptual motivations as The Hidden Pattern) ... but not nearly as much as the not-yet-released stuff... -- Ben On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, The books I was referring to were The Hidden Pattern and Artificial General Intelligence, both of which I purchased from Amazon. I know you have a better description, but what is in these two books is quite helpful. Ed Porter -Original Message- *From:* Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:01 PM *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, So rather than a definition of intelligence you want a recipe for how to make a one? Goertzel's descriptions of Novamente in his two recent books are the closest, publicly-available approximation of that of which I currently know. Actually my book on how to build an AGI are not publicly available at this point ... but I'm strongly leaning toward making them so ... it's mostly just a matter of finding time to proofread them, remove obsolete ideas, etc. and generally turn them from draft manuscripts into finalized manuscripts. I have already let a bunch of people read the drafts... Of course, a problem with putting material like this in dead-tree form is that the ideas are evolving. We learn new stuff as we proceed through implementing the stuff in the books But the basic framework (knowledge rep, algorithms, cognitive architecture, teaching methodology) has not changed as we've proceed through the work so far, just some of the details (wherein the devil famously lies ;-) -- Ben Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- *From:* John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 3:16 PM *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize No you are not mundane. All these things on the list (or most) are very well to be expected from a generally intelligent system or its derivatives. But I have this urge, being a software developer, to smash all these things up into their constituent components, partition commonalties, eliminate dupes, and perhaps further smash up into an atomic representation of intelligence as little intelligent engines that can be combined in various ways to build higher level functions. Kind of like a cellular automata approach and perhaps CA structures can be used. I really don't want to waste 10 years developing a giant piece of bloatage code that never fully works. Better to exhaust all possibilities in the mind and on paper as much as possible as software dev can be a giant PIA mess if not thought out beforehand as much as possible. Yes you can go so far before doing prototyping and testing but certain prototypes can take many months to build. Several on this email list have already gotten to this point and it may be more productive digesting their systems instead of reinventing… Even so that leaves many questions open about testing. Someone can claim they have AGI but how do you really know, could be just a highly sophisticated chatterbot. John *From:* Edward W. Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess I am mundane. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about a definition of intelligence. Goertzel's is good enough for me. Instead I think in terms of what I want these machines to do -- which includes human-level: -NL understanding and generation (including discourse level) -Speech recognition and generation (including appropriate pitch and volume modulation) -Non-speech auditory recognition and generation -Visual recognition and real time video generation -World-knowledge representation, understanding and reasoning -Computer program understanding and generation -Common sense reasoning -Cognition -Context sensitivity -Automatic learning -Intuition -Creativity -Inventiveness -Understanding human nature and human desires and goals(not expecting full human-level here) -Ability to scan and store and, over time, convert and incorporate into learned deep structure vast amounts of knowledge including ultimately all available recorded knowledge . To do such thinking I have come up with a fairly uniform approach to all these tasks, so I guess you could call that approach something approaching a theory of intelligence. But I mainly think of it as a theory of how to get certain really cool things done. I don't expect to get what is listed all at once, but, barring some major set back, this will probably
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
John, [A]bstract algebra based engine thats basically an algebraic structure pump sounds really exotic. Im visualizing a robo-version of my ninth grade algebra teacher on speed. If its not giving away the crown jewels, what in the hell is it and how does it fit into to AGI? And what are the always rearing CAs, you know, the ones with the tiny little heads? Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:44 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize Well Im neck deep in 55,000 semi-colons of code in this AI app Im building and need to get this bastich out the do and its probably going to grow to 80,000 before version 1.0. But at some point it needs to grow a brain. Yes I have my AGI design in mind since late 90s and had been watching what would happen with Intelligenesis. I particularly think along the lines of an abstract algebra based engine basically an algebraic structure pump. Everything is sets and operators with probability glue, a lot of SOM and AI sensory. But recent ideas in category theory are molding it and CAs are always rearing their tiny little heads . But spending time digesting Novamente theory and then general AGI structure thats valuable. Things like - graph storage indexing methodology - really need to spend some time on that especially learning from the people with experience. John From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, So rather than a definition of intelligence you want a recipe for how to make a one? Goertzel's descriptions of Novamente in his two recent books are the closest, publicly-available approximation of that of which I currently know. Actually my book on how to build an AGI are not publicly available at this point ... but I'm strongly leaning toward making them so ... it's mostly just a matter of finding time to proofread them, remove obsolete ideas, etc. and generally turn them from draft manuscripts into finalized manuscripts. I have already let a bunch of people read the drafts... Of course, a problem with putting material like this in dead-tree form is that the ideas are evolving. We learn new stuff as we proceed through implementing the stuff in the books But the basic framework (knowledge rep, algorithms, cognitive architecture, teaching methodology) has not changed as we've proceed through the work so far, just some of the details (wherein the devil famously lies ;-) _ 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/? 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=8660244id_secret=55814342-eb1811
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean I wasted my time and money by buying and reading the Novamente article in Artificial General Intelligence when I could have bought the new and improved Advances in Artificial General Intelligence. What a rip off! Ed ((( Bummer, eh? ;-) Seriously though: The articles on NM in the newer AGI edited volume don't review the overall NM architecture and design as thoroughly as the article on NM in the older AGI edited volume. We tried not to be redundant in writing the NM articles for the new volume. However, the articles in the new volume do go into more detail on various specific aspects of the NM system. One problem with the original (older) Artificial General Intelligence book is that the articles in it were actually written in 2002, but the book did not appear until 2006! This was because of various delays associated with the publishing process, which fortunately were not repeated with the newer volume... The good news is, the articles on NM in the newer AGI edited volume are available online at the AGIRI.org website, on the page devoted to the 2006 AGIRI workshop... http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?act=STf=21t=23 -- Ben -Original Message- *From:* Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:24 PM *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize Ah, gotcha... The recent book Advances in Artificial General Intelligence gives a bunch more detail than those, actually (though not as much of the conceptual motivations as The Hidden Pattern) ... but not nearly as much as the not-yet-released stuff... -- Ben On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, The books I was referring to were The Hidden Pattern and Artificial General Intelligence, both of which I purchased from Amazon. I know you have a better description, but what is in these two books is quite helpful. Ed Porter -Original Message- *From:* Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:01 PM *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize On 10/20/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, So rather than a definition of intelligence you want a recipe for how to make a one? Goertzel's descriptions of Novamente in his two recent books are the closest, publicly-available approximation of that of which I currently know. Actually my book on how to build an AGI are not publicly available at this point ... but I'm strongly leaning toward making them so ... it's mostly just a matter of finding time to proofread them, remove obsolete ideas, etc. and generally turn them from draft manuscripts into finalized manuscripts. I have already let a bunch of people read the drafts... Of course, a problem with putting material like this in dead-tree form is that the ideas are evolving. We learn new stuff as we proceed through implementing the stuff in the books But the basic framework (knowledge rep, algorithms, cognitive architecture, teaching methodology) has not changed as we've proceed through the work so far, just some of the details (wherein the devil famously lies ;-) -- Ben Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- *From:* John G. Rose [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 3:16 PM *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize No you are not mundane. All these things on the list (or most) are very well to be expected from a generally intelligent system or its derivatives. But I have this urge, being a software developer, to smash all these things up into their constituent components, partition commonalties, eliminate dupes, and perhaps further smash up into an atomic representation of intelligence as little intelligent engines that can be combined in various ways to build higher level functions. Kind of like a cellular automata approach and perhaps CA structures can be used. I really don't want to waste 10 years developing a giant piece of bloatage code that never fully works. Better to exhaust all possibilities in the mind and on paper as much as possible as software dev can be a giant PIA mess if not thought out beforehand as much as possible. Yes you can go so far before doing prototyping and testing but certain prototypes can take many months to build. Several on this email list have already gotten to this point and it may be more productive digesting their systems instead of reinventing… Even so that leaves many questions open about testing. Someone can claim they have AGI but how do you really know, could be just a highly sophisticated
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata Start reading.. John From: Edward W. Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John, [A]bstract algebra based engine that's basically an algebraic structure pump sounds really exotic. I'm visualizing a robo-version of my ninth grade algebra teacher on speed. If its not giving away the crown jewels, what in the hell is it and how does it fit into to AGI? And what are the always rearing CAs, you know, the ones with the tiny little heads? - 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=8660244id_secret=55818972-3fd4c5
Re: Images aren't best WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses
Let me take issue with one point (most of the rest I'm uninformed about): Relational databases aren't particularly compact. What they are is generalizable...and even there... The most general compact database is a directed graph. Unfortunately, writing queries for retrieval requires domain knowledge, and so does designing the db files. A directed graph db is (or rather can be) also more compact than a relational db. The reason that relational databases won out was because it was easy to standardize them. Prior to them, most dbs were hierarchical. This was also more efficient than relational databases, but was less flexible. The net databases existed, but were more difficult to use. My suspicion is that we've evolved to use some form of net db storage. Probably one that's equivalent to a partial directed graph (i.e., some, but not all, node links are bidirectional). This is probably the most efficient form that we know of. It's also a quite difficult one to learn. But some problems can't be adequately represented by anything else. (N.B.: It's possible to build a net db within a relational db...but the overhead will kill you. It's also possible to build a relational db within a net db, but sticking the normal form discipline is nigh unto impossible. That's not the natural mode for a net db. So the Relational db is probably the db analog of Turing complete...but when presented with a problem that doesn't fit, it's also about as efficient as a Turing machine. So this isn't an argument that you REALLY can't use a relational db for all of your representations, but rather that it's a really bad idea.) Mark Waser wrote: But how much information is in a map, and how much in the relationship database? Presumably you can put some v. rough figures on that for a given country or area. And the directions presumably cover journeys on roads? Or walks in any direction and between any spots too? All of the information in the map is in the relational database because the actual map is produced from the database (and information doesn't appear from nowhere). Or, to be clearer, almost *any* map you can buy today started life in a relational database. That's how the US government stores it's maps. That's how virtually all modern map printers store their maps because it's the most efficient way to store map information. The directions don't need to assume roads. They do so because that is how cars travel. The same algorithms will handle hiking paths. Very slightly different algorithms will handle off-road/off-path and will even take into account elevation, streams, etc. -- so, to clearly answer your question -- the modern map program can do everything that you can do with a map (and even if it couldn't, the fact that the map itself is produced solely from the database eliminates your original query). - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses MW: Take your own example of an outline map -- *none* of the current high-end mapping services (MapQuest, Google Maps, etc) store their maps as images. They *all* store them symbolicly in a relational database because that is *the* most efficient way to store them so that they can produce all of the different scale maps and directions that they provide every day. But how much information is in a map, and how much in the relationship database? Presumably you can put some v. rough figures on that for a given country or area. And the directions presumably cover journeys on roads? Or walks in any direction and between any spots too? - 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=8660244id_secret=55822072-b1bb8e
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
On 10/21/07, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata Start reading…. John, It doesn't really help in understanding how system described by such terms is related to implementation of AGI. It sounds pretty much like I use a Turing Machine, but with more exotic equivalent. If you could be more specific, it'd be interesting to have at least a rough picture of what your approach is about. -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[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=8660244id_secret=55822610-45b851
Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses.. P.S.
FWIW: A few years (decades?) ago some researchers took PET scans of people who were imagining a rectangle rotating (in 3-space, as I remember). They naturally didn't get much detail, but what they got was consistent with people applying a rotation algorithm within the visual cortex. This matches my internal reporting of what happens. Parallel processors optimize things differently than serial processors, and this wasn't a stored image. But it was consistent with an array of cells laid out in a rectangle activating, and having that activation precess as the image was visualized to rotate. Well, the detail wasn't great, and I never heard that it went anywhere after the initial results. (Somebody probably got a doctorate...and possibly left to work elsewhere.) But it was briefly written up in the popular science media (New Scientist? Brain-Mind Bulletin?) Anyway there's low resolution, possibly unconfirmed, evidence that when we visualize images, we generate a cell activation pattern within the visual cortex that has an activation boundary approximating in shape the object being visualized. (This doesn't say anything about how the information is stored.) Mark Waser wrote: Another way of putting my question/ point is that a picture (or map) of your face is surely a more efficient, informational way to store your face than any set of symbols - especially if a doctor wants to do plastic surgery on it, or someone wants to use it for any design purpose whatsoever? No, actually, most plastic surgery planning programs map your face as a limited set of three dimensional points, not an image. This allows for rotation and all sorts of useful things. And guess where they store this data . . . . a relational database -- just like any other CAD program. Images are *not* an efficient way to store data. Unless they are three-dimensional images, they lack data. Normally, they include a lot of unnecessary or redundant data. It is very, very rare that a computer stores any but the smallest image without compressing it. And remember, an image can be stored as symbols in a relational database very easily as a set of x-coords, y-coords, and colors. You're stuck on a crackpot idea with no proof and plenty of counter-examples. - 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=8660244id_secret=55823366-4cdb11
[agi] Re: Images aren't best
Let me take issue with one point (most of the rest I'm uninformed about): So this isn't an argument that you REALLY can't use a relational db for all of your representations, but rather that it's a really bad idea.) I agree completely. The only point that I was trying to hammer home was that a graphic or image is NOT a vastly - if not infinitely - more efficient way to store information (which was the troll's original statement). I would certainly pick and choose my representation schemes based upon what I want to do (and I agree fully that partial directed graphs and hyperdbs are both probably necessary for a lot of things and not effectively isomorphic to current relational db technology). - Original Message - From: Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:40 PM Subject: Re: Images aren't best WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses Let me take issue with one point (most of the rest I'm uninformed about): Relational databases aren't particularly compact. What they are is generalizable...and even there... The most general compact database is a directed graph. Unfortunately, writing queries for retrieval requires domain knowledge, and so does designing the db files. A directed graph db is (or rather can be) also more compact than a relational db. The reason that relational databases won out was because it was easy to standardize them. Prior to them, most dbs were hierarchical. This was also more efficient than relational databases, but was less flexible. The net databases existed, but were more difficult to use. My suspicion is that we've evolved to use some form of net db storage. Probably one that's equivalent to a partial directed graph (i.e., some, but not all, node links are bidirectional). This is probably the most efficient form that we know of. It's also a quite difficult one to learn. But some problems can't be adequately represented by anything else. (N.B.: It's possible to build a net db within a relational db...but the overhead will kill you. It's also possible to build a relational db within a net db, but sticking the normal form discipline is nigh unto impossible. That's not the natural mode for a net db. So the Relational db is probably the db analog of Turing complete...but when presented with a problem that doesn't fit, it's also about as efficient as a Turing machine. So this isn't an argument that you REALLY can't use a relational db for all of your representations, but rather that it's a really bad idea.) Mark Waser wrote: But how much information is in a map, and how much in the relationship database? Presumably you can put some v. rough figures on that for a given country or area. And the directions presumably cover journeys on roads? Or walks in any direction and between any spots too? All of the information in the map is in the relational database because the actual map is produced from the database (and information doesn't appear from nowhere). Or, to be clearer, almost *any* map you can buy today started life in a relational database. That's how the US government stores it's maps. That's how virtually all modern map printers store their maps because it's the most efficient way to store map information. The directions don't need to assume roads. They do so because that is how cars travel. The same algorithms will handle hiking paths. Very slightly different algorithms will handle off-road/off-path and will even take into account elevation, streams, etc. -- so, to clearly answer your question -- the modern map program can do everything that you can do with a map (and even if it couldn't, the fact that the map itself is produced solely from the database eliminates your original query). - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses MW: Take your own example of an outline map -- *none* of the current high-end mapping services (MapQuest, Google Maps, etc) store their maps as images. They *all* store them symbolicly in a relational database because that is *the* most efficient way to store them so that they can produce all of the different scale maps and directions that they provide every day. But how much information is in a map, and how much in the relationship database? Presumably you can put some v. rough figures on that for a given country or area. And the directions presumably cover journeys on roads? Or walks in any direction and between any spots too? - 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:
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Vladimir, That may very well be the case and something that I'm unaware of. The system I have in mind basically has I/O that is algebraic structures. Everything that it deals with is modeled this way. Any sort of system that it analyzes it converts to a particular structure that represents the data. All of its internal mechanisms are mathematically abstracted out - except for ancillary hard coded out of band assistors, AI, statistics, database, etc. The idea is to have a system that can understand systems and generate systems specifically. If you need to model a boolean based space for some sort of sampled data world it sees and correlates to that, the thing would generate a boolean algebra modeled and represented onto that informational structure for that particular space instance being studied. For example electronics theory - it would need to model that world as an instance based on electronics descriptor items and operators in that particular world or space set. Electronics theory world could be spat out as something very minor that it understands. Not sure if my terminology is very standard but do you understand the thinking? It may very well be morphic to other AGI structures or theories I don't know but I kind of like the way it works represented as such because it seems simple and not messy but very comprehensive and has other good qualities. John From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John, It doesn't really help in understanding how system described by such terms is related to implementation of AGI. It sounds pretty much like I use a Turing Machine, but with more exotic equivalent. If you could be more specific, it'd be interesting to have at least a rough picture of what your approach is about. - 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=8660244id_secret=55824739-ba7a29
Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses.. P.S.
Anyway there's low resolution, possibly unconfirmed, evidence that when we visualize images, we generate a cell activation pattern within the visual cortex that has an activation boundary approximating in shape the object being visualized. (This doesn't say anything about how the information is stored.) Or, in other words, the brain uses a three-dimensional *spatial* model of the object in question -- and certainly not a two-dimensional image. This goes back to the previous visual vs. spatial argument with the built-in human bias towards our primary sense. Heck, look at the word visualize. Do dolphins visualize or sonarize? In either case, what the brain is doing is creating a three-dimensional model of perceived reality -- and trivializing it by calling it an image is a really bad idea. - Original Message - From: Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses.. P.S. FWIW: A few years (decades?) ago some researchers took PET scans of people who were imagining a rectangle rotating (in 3-space, as I remember). They naturally didn't get much detail, but what they got was consistent with people applying a rotation algorithm within the visual cortex. This matches my internal reporting of what happens. Parallel processors optimize things differently than serial processors, and this wasn't a stored image. But it was consistent with an array of cells laid out in a rectangle activating, and having that activation precess as the image was visualized to rotate. Well, the detail wasn't great, and I never heard that it went anywhere after the initial results. (Somebody probably got a doctorate...and possibly left to work elsewhere.) But it was briefly written up in the popular science media (New Scientist? Brain-Mind Bulletin?) Anyway there's low resolution, possibly unconfirmed, evidence that when we visualize images, we generate a cell activation pattern within the visual cortex that has an activation boundary approximating in shape the object being visualized. (This doesn't say anything about how the information is stored.) Mark Waser wrote: Another way of putting my question/ point is that a picture (or map) of your face is surely a more efficient, informational way to store your face than any set of symbols - especially if a doctor wants to do plastic surgery on it, or someone wants to use it for any design purpose whatsoever? No, actually, most plastic surgery planning programs map your face as a limited set of three dimensional points, not an image. This allows for rotation and all sorts of useful things. And guess where they store this data . . . . a relational database -- just like any other CAD program. Images are *not* an efficient way to store data. Unless they are three-dimensional images, they lack data. Normally, they include a lot of unnecessary or redundant data. It is very, very rare that a computer stores any but the smallest image without compressing it. And remember, an image can be stored as symbols in a relational database very easily as a set of x-coords, y-coords, and colors. You're stuck on a crackpot idea with no proof and plenty of counter-examples. - 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/?; - 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=8660244id_secret=55854109-5699c6
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Hi Edward, I don't see any problems dealing with either discrete or continuous. In fact in some ways it'd be nice to eliminate discrete and just operate in continuous mode. But discrete maps very well with binary computers. Continuous is just a lot of discrete, the density depending on resources or defined as ranges in sets, other descriptors, etc. different ways. I'm not really well versed on NARS and Novamente so can't comment on them and they are light years down the road. They are basically in implementation stage, closer to realized utility, more than just theories. Oh those 55(80),000 lines of code are an AI product I am making so it is not AGI but the thing has basically stubs for AGI or could be used by AGI. But the methodology I am talking about seems to be very well workable with data from the real world. It's hard for me to find things that it doesn't work with although real tests need to be performed. BTW this type of thinking I'm sure is well analyzed by many abstract algebra mathematicians. Computability issues exist and these may make the theory not workable to a certain degree. I actually don't know enough about a lot of this math to really work it through deeply for a feasibility study (yet) and much of it is still up in the air. John What I found interesting is that, described at this very general level, what this is saying is actually related to my view of AGI, except that it appears to be based on a totally crisp, 1 or 0 view of the world. If that is correct, it may be very valuable in certain domains, with are themselves totally or almost totally crisp, but it won't work for most human-like thinking, because most human concepts and what they describe in the real world are not crisp. THAT IS, UNLESS, YOU PLAN TO MODEL CONCEPTUAL FLUIDITY, ITSELF, IN A TOTALLY CRISP, UNCERTAINTY-BASED, WAY, which is obviously doable at some level. I guess that is what you are referring to by saying our mind does crisp thinking all the time. Even most of us anti-crispies, plan to implement our fluid system on digital machinery using binary representation, which we hope will be crisp (but at the 22nm node it might be a little less than totally crisp.) But the issue is: do your crisp techniques efficiently learn and represent the fluidity of mental concepts, the non-literal similarity, and the many apparent contradictions, and the uncertainty that dominate in human thinking and sensory information about the real world? And if so, how is your approach different than that of the Novamente/Pei Wang-like approaches? And if so, how well are your (was it) 80,000 lines of code of working at actually representing and making sense of the shadows projected on the walls of your AGI's cave by sensations (or data) from the real world. Ed Porter, P.S. Re CA: maybe I am well versed in them but I don't know what the acronym stands for. If it wouldn't be too much trouble could you please educate me on the subject? - 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=8660244id_secret=56005098-c2de21
RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
So, do you or don't you model uncertainty, contradictory evidence, degree of similarity, and all those good things? And what is a CA, or don't i want to know? Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 10:39 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize Hi Edward, I dont see any problems dealing with either discrete or continuous. In fact in some ways itd be nice to eliminate discrete and just operate in continuous mode. But discrete maps very well with binary computers. Continuous is just a lot of discrete, the density depending on resources or defined as ranges in sets, other descriptors, etc. different ways. Im not really well versed on NARS and Novamente so cant comment on them and they are light years down the road. They are basically in implementation stage, closer to realized utility, more than just theories. Oh those 55(80),000 lines of code are an AI product I am making so it is not AGI but the thing has basically stubs for AGI or could be used by AGI. But the methodology I am talking about seems to be very well workable with data from the real world. Its hard for me to find things that it doesnt work with although real tests need to be performed. BTW this type of thinking Im sure is well analyzed by many abstract algebra mathematicians. Computability issues exist and these may make the theory not workable to a certain degree. I actually dont know enough about a lot of this math to really work it through deeply for a feasibility study (yet) and much of it is still up in the air John What I found interesting is that, described at this very general level, what this is saying is actually related to my view of AGI, except that it appears to be based on a totally crisp, 1 or 0 view of the world. If that is correct, it may be very valuable in certain domains, with are themselves totally or almost totally crisp, but it wont work for most human-like thinking, because most human concepts and what they describe in the real world are not crisp. THAT IS, UNLESS, YOU PLAN TO MODEL CONCEPTUAL FLUIDITY, ITSELF, IN A TOTALLY CRISP, UNCERTAINTY-BASED, WAY, which is obviously doable at some level. I guess that is what you are referring to by saying our mind does crisp thinking all the time. Even most of us anti-crispies, plan to implement our fluid system on digital machinery using binary representation, which we hope will be crisp (but at the 22nm node it might be a little less than totally crisp.) But the issue is: do your crisp techniques efficiently learn and represent the fluidity of mental concepts, the non-literal similarity, and the many apparent contradictions, and the uncertainty that dominate in human thinking and sensory information about the real world? And if so, how is your approach different than that of the Novamente/Pei Wang-like approaches? And if so, how well are your (was it) 80,000 lines of code of working at actually representing and making sense of the shadows projected on the walls of your AGIs cave by sensations (or data) from the real world. Ed Porter, P.S. Re CA: maybe I am well versed in them but I dont know what the acronym stands for. If it wouldnt be too much trouble could you please educate me on the subject? _ 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/? 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=8660244id_secret=56007871-ae3472
