[agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point ( *Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) *I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Hi Steve, I'm thinking about the Texai bootstrap dialog system, and in particular about adding grammar rules and vocabulary for the utterance Compile a class. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:28:07 AM Subject: [agi] Pearls Before Swine... Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
AW: [agi] Consciousness vs. Intelligence
Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote And that's the same mistake people are making with AGI generally - no one has a model of what general intelligence involves, or of the kind of problems it must solve - what it actually DOES - and everyone has left that till later, and is instead busy with all the technical programming that they find exciting - with the how it works side - without knowing whether anything they're doing is really necessary or relevant.. --- Some people have models but it is not clear whether they are right or how many computational costs they have. In this case it is useful to write the code and see what it can do and where are the limits. Intelligence is a very special problem. There is no well defined input-output relation. For any problem which can be specified by a table of input to output there is a trivial program which solves this problem: The program reads the input from the table and returns its output. In this sense, every well defined problem can be solved by a program, which is not intelligent. If we accept, that intelligence can never be specified by a complete well defined input-output relation, then intelligence must be a PROPERTY of the algorithm which behaves intelligent. Especially GENERAL Intelligence cannot be defined by black-box behavior (=complete input-output relation). It is a white box problem. The turing test is a weak test, since if I ask n questions and obtain n answers which seems to be human-like, then a table of these questions and answers would do the same. After the turing test, I will be never sure, if the human-like behavior holds for question n+1, n+2, ... Therefore, we must know what is going on in the machine, in order to be sure that it acts intelligent in most different situations. The turing test was invented because we still have no complete model of necessary and sufficient conditions of intelligence. If you define the universe as a set of objects with relations among each other and dynamic laws, then an important condition of a general intelligent system is the ability to create representations of all kinds of objects, all kinds of relations and all kind of dynamic laws which can be inferred from sensory inputs the AGI-system perceives. You see, that we cannot give a table of input-output pairs for this problem. We must define a general mechanism which can extract the patterns from the input stream and creates the representations. This is already a white-box problem but it is a problem which can be solved and algorithms can be proven to solve it, I suppose. The problem of consciousness is not only a hard problem because of unknown mechanisms in the brain but it is a problem of finding the DEFINITION of necessary conditions for consciousness. I think, consciousness without intelligence is not possible. Intelligence without consciousness is possible. But I am not sure whether GENERAL intelligence without consciousness is possible. In every case, consciousness is even more a white-box problem than intelligence. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Hi Steve, I'm thinking about the solution to the Friendliness problem, and in particular desperately need to finish my paper on it for the AAAI Fall Symposium that is due by next Sunday. What I would suggest, however, is that quickly formatted e-mail postings are exactly the wrong method for addressing high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. Part of the problem is that quick e-mails always (must) assume agreement on foundational issues and/or (must) assume that the reader will agree with (or take your word for) many points. A much better way of getting your point across (and proving that it is a valid point) is to write yourself a nice six-to-twelve page publishable-quality scientific paper. Doing so will be difficult and time-consuming but ultimately far more worthwhile than just throwing something out to be consumed and probably ultimately ignored by a mailing list of bigots. Mark P.S. Mike Tintner is was ahead of everyone in no response postings not because he challenges the herd mentality but because he has no clue of what he is talking about and endlessly repeats variations of the same point *without* successfully proving it's foundations, successfully answering criticism, or even extending his point into something that is worthwhile and usable as opposed to just random speculation. Also, bleating about the fact that you're not being answered because you're challenging the herd, even if true, is only counter-productive and whiny and more likely to get you ignored -- especially if you do it in all caps. Crocker's rules as always (with the waste of my time exception :-) - Original Message - From: Stephen Reed To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine... Hi Steve, I'm thinking about the Texai bootstrap dialog system, and in particular about adding grammar rules and vocabulary for the utterance Compile a class. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:28:07 AM Subject: [agi] Pearls Before Swine... Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve, Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. And we have already gotten tired of arguing those same points, back in our undergrad or grad school days (or analogous time periods for those who didn't get PhD's...). The points you guys are making are not as original as you seem to think. And the reason we don't take time to argue against them in detail is that it's boring and we're busy. These points have already been extensively argued by others in the published literature over the past few decades; but I also don't want to take the time to dig up citations for you I'm not saying that I have an argument in favor of my approach, that would convince a skeptic. I know I don't. The only argument that will convince a skeptic is to complete a functional human-level AGI. And even that won't be enough for some skeptics. (Maybe a fully rigorous formal theory of how to create an AGI with a certain intelligence level given specific resource constraints would convince some skeptics, but not many I suppose -- discussions would devolve into quibbles over the definition of intelligence, and other particular mathematical assumptions of the sort that any formal analysis must make.) OK. Back to work on the OpenCog Prime documentation, which IMO is a better use of my time than endlessly repeating the arguments from philosophy-of-mind and cog-sci class on an email list ;-) Sorry if my tone seems obnoxious, but I didn't find your description of those of us working on actual AI systems as having a herd mentality very appealing. The truth is, one of the big problems in the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has **their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed independently rather than compromising with others on various design points. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the different systems out there vary wildly in many respects. -- Ben G On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? Steve Richfield agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve, A quick response for now. I was going to reply to an earlier post of yours, in which you made the most important point for me: The difficulties in proceeding in both neuroscience and AI/AGI is NOT a lack of technology or clever people to apply it, but is rather a lack of understanding of the real world and how to effectively interact within it. I had already had a go at expounding this,and I think I've got a better way now. (It's actually v. important to philosophically conceptualise it precisely - and you're not quite managing it any more than I was). I think it's this: everyone in AGI is almost exclusively interested in general intelligence as INFORMATION PROCESSING - as opposed to KNOWLEDGE (about the world). IOW everyone is mainly interested in the problems of storing and manipulating information via hardware and software, and what logic/maths/programs etc to use., which is of course, what they know all about, and is essential. People aren't interested in, though, in what is also essential: the problems of acquiring knowledge about the world. For them knowledge is all data. Different kinds and forms of knowledge? Dude, they're just bandwidth. To draw an analogy, it's like being interested only in developing a wonderfully powerful set of cameras, and not in photography. To be a photographer, you have to know about your subject as well as your machine and its s/ware. You have to know, say, human beings and how their faces change and express emotions, if you want to be a portrait photographer - or animals and their behaviour if you want to photograph them in the wild. You have to know the problems of acquiring knowledge re particular parts of the world. And the same is true of AGI. This lack of interest in knowledge is at the basis of the fantasy of a superAGI taking off. That's an entirely mathematical fantasy derived from thinking purely about the information processing side of things. Computers are getting more and more powerful; as my computer starts to build a body of data, it will build faster and faster, get recursively better and better... and whoops.. it'll take over the world. On an information processing basis, that seems reasonable - for computers definitely will keep increasing amazingly in processing power From a knowledge POV, though, it's an absurd fantasy. As soon as you think in terms of acquiring knowledge and solving problems about any particular area of the world, you realise that knowledge doesn't simply expand mathematically. Everywhere you look, you find messy problems and massive areas of ignorance, that can only be solved creatively. The brain - all this neuroscience and we still don't know the engram principle. The body - endless diseases we haven't solved. Women - what the heck *do* they want? And so on and on. And unfortunately the solution of these problems - creativity - doesn't run to mathematical timetables. If only.. And as soon as you think in knowledge as opposed to information terms, you realise that current AGI is based on an additional absurd fantasy - the bookroom fantasy. When you think just in terms of data, well, it seems reasonable that you can simply mine the texts of the world, esp. via the Net, and supplement that with instruction from human teachers, and become ever more superintelligent. You or your agent, says the fantasy, can just sit in a room with your books and net connection, and perhaps a few visitors, and learn all about the world. Apparently, you don't actually have to go out in the world at all - you can learn all about Kazakhstan without ever having been there, or sex without ever having had sex, or sports without ever having played them, or diseases without ever having been in surgeries and hospitals and sickrooms etc. etc. When you think in terms of knowledge, you quickly realise that to know and solve problems about the world or any part, you need not just information in texts, you need EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATION, INVESTIGATION, EXPERIMENT, and INTERACTION with the subject, and maybe a stiff drink. A computer sitting in a room, or a billion computers in a billion rooms, are not going to solve the problems of the world in magnificent isolation. (They'll help an awful lot, but they won't finally solve the problems). Just thinking in terms of science as one branch of knowlege, and how science solves problems, would tell you this. Science without in-the-lab experiment and in-the-field observation is unthinkable. The bookroom fantasy is truly absurd if you think about it in knowledge terms, but AGI-ers just aren't thinking in those terms. You, Steve, it seems to me, are unusual here because you have had to think very extensively in terms of knowledge - and a particular subject area, i.e. health, and so you're acutely and unusually aware of the problems of acquiring knowledge there rather than just data. It has to be said, that it's v. hard to think about intelligence from
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
The truth is, one of the big problems in the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has **their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed independently rather than compromising with others on various design points. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the different systems out there vary wildly in many respects. -- Ben G To analogize to another field, in his book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Lee Smolin identifies three current approaches to quantum gravity: 1-- string theory 2-- loop quantum gravity 3-- miscellaneous mathematical approaches based on various odd formalisms and ideas I think that AGI, right now, could also be analyzed as having four main approaches 1-- logic-based ... including a host of different logic formalisms 2-- neural net/ brain simulation based ... including some biologically quasi-realistic systems and some systems that are more formal and abstract 3-- integrative ... which itself is a very broad category with a lot of heterogeneity ... including e.g. systems composed of wholly distinct black boxes versus systems that have intricate real-time feedbacks between different components' innards 4-- miscellaneous ... evolutionary learning, etc. etc. It's hardly a herd, it's more of a chaos ;-p -- Ben G --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
2008/6/8 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. I entirely agree with this response. To anyone who does believe that they're ahead of the game and being ignored my advice would be to produce some working system which can be demonstrated - even if it's fairly minimalist. It's much harder to people to ignore a working demo than mere philosophical debate or speculation. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. ATM/Mentifex --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
AW: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve Richfield wrote In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. --- Philosophers, biologists, cognitive scientists worked many many years to model the algorithms in the brain but only with success in some details. The overall model of human GI still does not exist. Should we really begin programming AGI only after fully understanding? High tech success does not need to fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. High tech products of today have most often a long way of past evolution. Rodney Brooks suspects, that this will also be the case with AGI. It is a process of trial and error. We build systems, evaluate their limits and build better systems and so on. Theoretical models are useful. But the more complex the problem is, the more important is experimental experience with the subject. And you can get this experience only from running programs. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve Richfield asked: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? We're thinking Don't feed the Trolls! _ agi | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscriptionhttp://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Ben and Mike, WOW, two WONDERFUL in-your-face postings that CLEARLY delimit a central AGI issue. Since my original posting ended with a question and Ben took a shot at the question, I would like to know a little more... On 6/8/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting. And we have already gotten tired of arguing those same points, back in our undergrad or grad school days (or analogous time periods for those who didn't get PhD's...). I think that the underlying problem here is that Mike and I haven't yet really heard the other side. Since you and others are presumably looking for financing, you too will need these arguments encapsulated in some sort of read this form you can throw at disbelievers. If your statement above is indeed true (and I believe that it is), then you ARE correct that we shouldn't be arguing this here. You should simply throw an article at us to make your point. If this article doesn't yet exist, then you MUST create it if you are ever to have ANY chance at funding. You might want to invite Mike and I to wring it out before you publish it. The points you guys are making are not as original as you seem to think. I don't think we made any claim of originality, except perhaps in expression. And the reason we don't take time to argue against them in detail is that it's boring and we're busy. These points have already been extensively argued by others in the published literature over the past few decades; but I also don't want to take the time to dig up citations for you You need just ONE GOOD citation on which to hang your future hopes at funding. More than that and your funding will disappear in a pile of paper. I'm not saying that I have an argument in favor of my approach, that would convince a skeptic. I have actually gotten funding for a project where the expert was a skeptic who advised against funding! My argument went something like Note the lack of any technical objections in his report. What he is REALLY saying is that HE (the Director of an EE Department at a major university) cannot do this, and I agree. However, my team has a fresh approach and the energy to succeed that he simply does not have. I know I don't. The only argument that will convince a skeptic is to complete a functional human-level AGI. You are planning to first succeed, and then go for funding?! This sounds suicidal. And even that won't be enough for some skeptics. (Maybe a fully rigorous formal theory of how to create an AGI with a certain intelligence level given specific resource constraints would convince some skeptics, but not many I suppose -- discussions would devolve into quibbles over the definition of intelligence, and other particular mathematical assumptions of the sort that any formal analysis must make.) I suspect that whatever you write will be good for something, even though it may fall far short of AGI. OK. Back to work on the OpenCog Prime documentation, which IMO is a better use of my time than endlessly repeating the arguments from philosophy-of-mind and cog-sci class on an email list ;-) Again, please don't repeat anything here, just show us what you would obviously have to show someone considering funding your efforts. Sorry if my tone seems obnoxious, but I didn't find your description of those of us working on actual AI systems as having a herd mentality very appealing. Oops, sorry about that. I meant no disrespect. The truth is, one of the big problems in the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has **their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed independently rather than compromising with others on various design points. YES. The lack of usable software interfaces does indeed cut deeply. A good proposal here could go a LONG way to propelling the AGI programming field to success. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the different systems out there vary wildly in many respects. While the details vary widely, Mike and I were addressing the very concept of writing code to perform functions (e.g. thinking) that apparently develop on their own as emergent properties, and in the process foreclosing on many opportunities, e.g. developing in variant ways to address problems in new paradigms. Direct programming would seem to lead to lesser rather than greater intelligence. Am I correct that this is indeed a central thread in all of the different systems that you had in mind? Note in passing that simulations can sometimes be compiled into executable code. Now that the bidirectional equivalence of NN and fuzzy logic approaches has been established, and people often program fuzzy logic methods directly into C/C++ code (especially economic models), there is now a (contorted) path to
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Gary Miller writes: We're thinking Don't feed the Trolls! Yeah, typical trollish behavior -- upon failing to stir the pot with one approcah, start adding blanket insults. I put Steve Richfield in my killfile a week ago or so, but I went back to the archive to read the message in question. The reason it got no response is that it is incoherent. Seriously, I couldn't even understand the point of it. Something about dreams and brains being wired completely different and some thumbnail calculations which are not included but apparently conclude that AGI will need the entire population of the earth for software maintenance... um, that's just weird rambling crackpottery. It is so far away from any sort of AGI nuts and bolts that it cannot even be parsed. There are people who do not believe they are crackpots (but are certainly perceived that way) who then transform into trolls spouting vague blanket insults and whining about being ignored. That type of unsupported fringe wackiness is tolerated because, frankly, the whole field is fringe to most people. When it turns into vague attacks, blanket condemnation, and insults (a la Tintner and now Richfield) it simply isn't worth reading any more. For others in danger of spiraling down the same drain, I recommend: * Be cordial. Note: condescending is not cordial. * Be specific and concise. Stick to one point. * Do not refer to decades-old universally ignored papers about character recognition as if they are AI-shaping revolutions. * Do not drop names from some hazy good old days * Attempt to limit rambling off-topic insights into marginally related material * If you are going to criticize instead of putting forward positive ideas (why you'd bother criticizing this field is beyond me, but if you must): criticize specific things, not the herd or all of you researchers or the field of AGI... as Ben pointed out earlier, no two people in this area agree on much of anything and they cannot be lumped together. Criticizing specific things means actually reading and attempting to understand the published works of AGI researchers -- the test for whether you belong here is whether you are willing and able to actually do that. Mr. Richfield may find a more receptive audience here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Consciousness vs. Intelligence
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem of consciousness is not only a hard problem because of unknown mechanisms in the brain but it is a problem of finding the DEFINITION of necessary conditions for consciousness. I think, consciousness without intelligence is not possible. Intelligence without consciousness is possible. But I am not sure whether GENERAL intelligence without consciousness is possible. In every case, consciousness is even more a white-box problem than intelligence. For general intelligence some components and sub-components of consciousness need to be there and some don't. And some could be replaced with a human operator as in an augmentation-like system. Also some components could be designed drastically different from their human consciousness counterparts in order to achieve more desirous effects in one area or another. ALSO there may be consciousness components integrated into AGI that humans don't have or that are almost non-detectable in humans. And I think that the different consciousness components and sub-components could be more dynamically resource allocated in the AGI software than in the human mind. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
From: A. T. Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
AW: [agi] Consciousness vs. Intelligence
John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote For general intelligence some components and sub-components of consciousness need to be there and some don't. And some could be replaced with a human operator as in an augmentation-like system. Also some components could be designed drastically different from their human consciousness counterparts in order to achieve more desirous effects in one area or another. ALSO there may be consciousness components integrated into AGI that humans don't have or that are almost non-detectable in humans. And I think that the different consciousness components and sub-components could be more dynamically resource allocated in the AGI software than in the human mind. Can neither say 'yes' nor 'no'. Depends on how we DEFINE consciousness as a physical or algorithm-phenomenon. Until now we each have only an idea of consciousness by intrinsic phenomena of our own mind. We cannot prove the existence of consciousness in any other individual because of the lack of a better definition. I do not believe, that consciousness is located in a small sub-component. It seems to me, that it is an emergent behavior of a special kind of huge network of many systems. But without any proper definition this can only be a philosophical thought. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
While the details vary widely, Mike and I were addressing the very concept of writing code to perform functions (e.g. thinking) that apparently develop on their own as emergent properties, and in the process foreclosing on many opportunities, e.g. developing in variant ways to address problems in new paradigms. Direct programming would seem to lead to lesser rather than greater intelligence. Am I correct that this is indeed a central thread in all of the different systems that you had in mind? Different AGI systems rely on emergence to varying extents ... No one knows which brain functions rely on emergence to which extents ... we're still puzzling this out even in relatively well-understood brain regions like visual cortex. (Feedforward connections in visual cortex are sorta well understood, but feedback connections, which is where emergence might play in, are very poorly understood as yet.) For instance, the presence of a hierarchy of progressively more abstract feature detectors in visual cortex clearly does NOT emerge in a strong sense... it may emerge during fetal and early-childhood neural self-organization, but in a way that is carefully genetically preprogrammed. But, the neural structures that carry out object-recognition may well emerge as a result of complex nonlinear dynamics involving learning in both the feedback and feedforward connections... so my point is, the brain is a mix of wired-in and emergent stuff, and we don't know where the boundary lies... as with vision, similarly e.g. for language understanding. Read Jackendoff's book Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. and the multi-author book mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=0262050528 for thoughtful treatments of the subtle relations btw programmed-in and learned aspects of human intelligence ... much of the discussion pertains implicitly to emergence too, though they don't use that word much ... because emergence is key to learning... In the Novamente design we've made some particular choices about what to build in versus what to allow to emerge. But, for sure, the notion of emergence from complex self-organizing dynamics has been a key part of our thinking in making the design... Neural net AGI approaches tend to leave more to emerge, whereas logic based approaches tend to leave less... but that's just a broad generalization In short there is a huge spectrum of choices in the AGi field regarding what to build in versus what to allow to emerge ... not a herd mentality at all... -- Ben --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Consciousness vs. Intelligence
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For general intelligence some components and sub-components of consciousness need to be there and some don't. And some could be replaced with a human operator as in an augmentation-like system. Also some components could be designed drastically different from their human consciousness counterparts in order to achieve more desirous effects in one area or another. ALSO there may be consciousness components integrated into AGI that humans don't have or that are almost non-detectable in humans. And I think that the different consciousness components and sub-components could be more dynamically resource allocated in the AGI software than in the human mind. Can neither say 'yes' nor 'no'. Depends on how we DEFINE consciousness as a physical or algorithm-phenomenon. Until now we each have only an idea of consciousness by intrinsic phenomena of our own mind. We cannot prove the existence of consciousness in any other individual because of the lack of a better definition. I do not believe, that consciousness is located in a small sub- component. It seems to me, that it is an emergent behavior of a special kind of huge network of many systems. But without any proper definition this can only be a philosophical thought. Given that other humans have similar DNA it is fair to assume that they are conscious like us. Not 100% proof but probably good enough. Sure the whole universe may still be rendered for the purpose of one conscious being, and in a way that is true, and potentially that is something to take into account. Consciousness has multiple definitions by multiple different people. But even without an exact definition you can still extract properties and behaviors from it and from those, extrapolations can be made and the beginnings of a model can be established. Even if it is an emergent behavior of a huge network of many systems doesn't preclude it from being described in a non-emergent way. And if it is only uniquely describable through emergent behavior it still has some general commonly accepted components or properties. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Ben: No one knows which brain functions rely on emergence to which extents ... we're still puzzling this out even in relatively well-understood brain regions like visual cortex. ... But, the neural structures that carry out object-recognition may well emerge as a result of complex nonlinear dynamics involving learning in both the feedback and feedforward connections... Ben, Why, when you see this: http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=wtmjsxmmyhlthumb=4 do you also see something like this: http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300V/20061110/Black-Swan-134875.jpg Wtf is he on about? Well, you just effortlessly crossed domains - did some emergence. You solved the central problem of AGI - that underlies metaphor, analogy, creativity, conceptualisation/categorisation, and even, I'd argue, visual object recognition - how to cross domains. How did you solve it? We have a philosophical difference here - your approach is/was to consider ways of information processing - look at different kinds of logic, programming, neural networks and theories of neural processing, (as above) and set up your system on that basis, and hope the answer will emerge. (You also defined all 4 main approaches to AGI purely in terms of info. processing and not in any terms of how they propose to cross domains). My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically, because otherwise you're working blind. Isn't that (he asks from ignorance) what you guys do when called in to help design a company's IT system from scratch - look first at the company's problems in their own terms, before making technical recommendations?(It's OK - I know minds won't meet here :) ). --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
- Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically... -- Instead of talking about what you would do, do it. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
- Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically... -- Instead of talking about what you would do, do it. I mean, work out your ideal way to solve the questions of the mind and share it with us after you've have found some interesting results. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson -- Ben G On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your solution technically... -- Instead of talking about what you would do, do it. I mean, work out your ideal way to solve the questions of the mind and share it with us after you've have found some interesting results. Jim Bromer agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
J. Andrew Rogers wrote: On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: But that is a world away from the idea that neurons, as they are, are as simple as transistors. I do not believe this was a simple misunderstanding on my part: the claim that neurons are as simple as transistors is an unsupportable one. Richard, you reliably ignore what I actually write, selectively parsing it in some bizarre context that I don't recognize. There is a reading comprehension issue, or at the very least you don't follow what I consider to be the dead obvious theoretical implications. Metaphorically, you are arguing that the latex sheet model of gravitational curvature is stupid because astronomers have never seen latex in space, and then wonder why the physicists are giving you funny looks. Are you arguing that the function that is a neuron is *not* an elementary operator for whatever computational model it is that describes the brain? I directly and exactly *quoted* several passages that you wrote. But you don't call that quoting, you call it reliably ignor[ing] what I actually write, selectively parsing it in some bizarre context that I don't recognize. H. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I directly and exactly *quoted* several passages that you wrote. And completely ignored both the context and intended semantics. Hence why I might be under the impression that there is a reading comprehension issue. But enough of that, let's get to the meat of it: Are you arguing that the function that is a neuron is not an elementary operator for whatever computational model describes the brain? J. Andrew Rogers --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Steve Richfield wrote: Mike Tintner, et al, After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important point (*Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) *I went back through my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any responses. Mike Tintner was way ahead of me in no-response postings. A quick scan showed that these also tended to address high-level issues that challenge the contemporary herd mentality. In short, most people on this list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI (with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we appear to operate), but not in WHAT to program, and most especially not in any apparent insurmountable barriers to successful open-ended capabilities, where attention would seem to be crucial to ultimate success. Anyone who has been in high-tech for a few years KNOWS that success can come only after you fully understand what you must overcome to succeed. Hence, based on my own past personal experiences and present observations here, present efforts here would seem to be doomed to fail - for personal if not for technological reasons. Normally I would simply dismiss this as rookie error, but I know that at least some of the people on this list have been around as long as I have been, and hence they certainly should know better since they have doubtless seen many other exuberant rookies fall into similar swamps of programming complex systems without adequate analysis. Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? I was thinking that your previous commentary was a stream of consciousness jumble that made no sense. You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I basically said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive science does not exist. That kind of position makes me want to not take any notice of your comments. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
Regarding how much of the complexity of real neurons we would need to put into a computational neural net model in order to make a model displaying a realistic emulation of neural behavior -- the truth is we JUST DON'T KNOW Izhikevich for instance http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/izhikevich/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm gets more detailed than standard formal neural net models, but is it detailed enough? We really don't know. I like his work for its use of nonlinear dynamics and emergence though. Until we understand the brain better, we can only speculate about what level of detail is needed... This is part of the reason why I'm not working on a closely brain-based AGI approach... I find neuroscience important and fascinating, and I try to keep up with the most relevant parts of the field, but I don't think it's mature enough to really usefully guide AGI development yet. -- Ben G On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, this is not a variant of the analog is fundamentally different from digital category. Each of the things that I mentioned could be implemented digitally -- however, they are entirely new classes of things to consider and require a lot more data and processing. I find it very interesting that you can't even answer a straight yes-or-no question without resorting to obscuring BS and inventing strawmen. Are you actually claiming that neurotransmitter levels are irrelevant or are you implementing them? Are you claiming that leakage along the axons and dendrites is irrelevant or are you modeling it? Mark, I think the point is that there should be a simple model that produces the same capabilities as a neuron (or brain). Most of these biological particulars are important for biological brain, but it should be possible to engineer them away on computational substrate when we have a high-level model of what they are actually for. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
But enough of that, let's get to the meat of it: Are you arguing that the function that is a neuron is not an elementary operator for whatever computational model describes the brain? We don't know which function that describes a neuron we need to use -- are Izhikevich's nonlinear dynamics models of ion channels good enough, or do we need to go deeper? Also we don't know about the importance of extracellular charge diffusion... computation/memory happening in the glial network ... etc. ... phenomena which suggest that the neuron-functions are not the only elementary operators at play in brain dynamics... Lots of fun stuff still to be learned ;-) ben --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
John G. Rose wrote: [...] Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi Before Goertzel came to be, I am. (a Biblical allusion in Greek :-) http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html The above link is an update on 8 June 2008 of http://www.advogato.org/article/769.html from 2004. My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. In other words, Soc. Sec. will henceforh finance Mentifex AI. Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax. http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/userman.html will remain in JavaScript and not Ajax. As I continue to re-write the User Manual, I will press hard for the adoption of Mentifex AI in high-school classes on artificial intelligence. Arthur T. Murray --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
John G. Rose wrote: Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax. http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/userman.html will remain in JavaScript and not Ajax. Oh OK just checkin'. AJAX is JavaScript BTW, and quite powerful. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness
I don't think anyone anywhere on this list ever suggested time sequential was required for consciousness. Now as data streams in from sensory receptors that initially is time sequential. But as it is processed that changes to where time is changed. And time is sort of like an index eh? Or is time just an illusion? For consciousness though there is this non-synchronous concurrent processing of components that gives it, at least for me, some of its characteristic behavior. Different things happening at the same time but all slightly off or lagging. If everything was happening at the same instant that might negative some of the self-detectability of consciousness. John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To all, In response to the many postings regarding consciousness, I would like to make some observations: 1. Computation is often done best in a shifted paradigm, where the internals are NOT one-to-one associated with external entities. A good example are modern chess playing programs, which usually play chess on an 80-square long linear strip with 2 out of every 10 squares being unoccupyable. Knights can move +21, +19, +12, +8, -8, -12, -19, and -21. The player sees a 2-D space, but the computer is entirely in a 1-D space. I suspect (and can show neuronal characteristics that strongly suggest) that much the same is happening with the time dimension. There appears to be little different with this 4th dimension, except how it is interfaced with the outside world. 2. Paradigm mapping is commonplace in computing, e.g. the common practice of providing stream of consciousness explanations for AI program operation, to aid in debugging. Are such program NOT conscious because the logic they followed was NOT time-sequential?! When asked why I made a particular move in a chess game, it often takes me a half hour to explain a decision that I made in seconds. Clearly, my own thought processes are NOT time-sequential consciousness as others' here on this forum apparently are. I believe that designing for time-sequential conscious operation is starting from a VERY questionable premise. 3. Note that dreams can span years of seemingly real experience in the space of seconds/minutes. Clearly this process is NOT time-sequential. 4. Note that individual brains can be organized COMPLETELY differently, especially in multilingual people. Hence, our wiring almost certainly comes from experience and not from genetics. This would seem to throw a monkey wrench into AGI efforts to manually program such systems. 5. I have done some thumbnail calculations as to what it would take to maintain a human-scale AI/AGI system. These come out on the order of needing the entire population of the earth just for software maintenance, with no idea what might be needed to initially create such a working system. Without poisoning a discussion with my own pessimistic estimates, I would like to see some optimistic estimates for such maintenance, to see if a case could be made that such systems might actually be maintainable. Reinforcing my thoughts on other threads, observation of our operation is probably NOT enough to design a human-scale AGI from, ESPECIALLY when paradigm shifting is being done that effectively hides our actual operation. I believe that more information is necessary, though hopefully not an entire readout of a brain. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
