RE: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
Brad wrote: I see your point, but I'm not so sure you're correct. If you're devoting resources specifically to getting some attention, you may indeed speed up the process. I wish you luck. Well, I'm not devoting resources to getting widespread attention for AGI right now -- because the time is not right. The time to devote resources to getting widespread attention for AGI will be after the baby mind is done being engineered and we've started teaching it I'm a bit annoyed that it's taking so long to get to that stage, but such is life (and, more to the point, such is the progress of highly ambitious and complex science/engineering projects, particularly those carried out on a part-time basis... (though a number of us are working on Novamente-based projects full-time, the AGI aspects are being done part-time while a lot of focus is on short-term narrow-AI apps of the codebase that are able to generate revenue right now)) Getting widespread attention for AGI right now would probably be possible via a well-coordinated publicity effort -- but it would be foolish. The attention would not stick well enough because of excessive skepticism on the part of the conventional academic community, and because of the lack of a continuous stream of ongoing exciting results. The attention would likely fade before we get to the teaching-baby-mind phase... and then it would be more difficult to get the attention back. On the other hand, a publicity storm when the baby mind starts being taught will create attention that will stick far better -- because the criticism by conventional academics will be more muted (assuming the baby mind has been described in publications in the right journals, which is easy enough), and because the baby mind's continual intelligence improvements will an provide ongoing stream of novel fodder for the media. Attracting and sustaining media attention is not easy, but unlike creating AGI, it's a known science ;-) However even if you do get such attention, it will still take quite a while for the repercussions to percolate through society. Yes, of course... Mike seemed to be implying a technological rapture with very rapid changes at all levels of society. I think that people at all levels will be slow to react while a small percentage of early adopters who grab hold and start creating a market. This belief is based on historical precedent. Hmmm... well, I think that once the population at large becomes AGI-aware, then the collective mind of the first-world business and scientific community will start thinking of all sorts of AGI applications and working really hard to make them happen. And the speed of dissemination of AGI-awareness through society will depend a lot on the mode of dissemination. For example, suppose one launched an AGI in the context of a popular online multiplayer game, say the next Everquest (whatever that may be) Then a big sector of the population will get what the AGI is like very quickly. The game's popularity will grow because the AGI is involved with the game, and then a huge percentage of the teenage boys in the world will be highly AGI-savvy What if an AGI scientist with rudimentary English conversation skills makes a significant discovery?... and the AGI is interviewed on every popular TV talk show (together with its dubiously photogenic creator ;)? It doesn't even have to be a world-shattering discovery, just something moderately original and important, but conceived by a software system that can talk in rudimentary English about what it discovered and why. (Bear in mind that some kinds of scientific discovery will in a sense be easy for AGI's, compared to a lot of everyday tasks that seem easier to humans.) These are just two examples of how broad AGI awareness may be quickly raised -- there are many more... -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
I see your point, but I'm not so sure you're correct. If you're devoting resources specifically to getting some attention, you may indeed speed up the process. I wish you luck. However even if you do get such attention, it will still take quite a while for the repercussions to percolate through society. Mike seemed to be implying a technological rapture with very rapid changes at all levels of society. I think that people at all levels will be slow to react while a small percentage of early adopters who grab hold and start creating a market. This belief is based on historical precedent. -Brad I think about it this way: * Sometimes bullshit get huge amounts of media attention and money. * Sometimes really *demonstrably* valuable things get pathetically little media attention and money * Sometimes really demonstrably valuable things get huge amounts of media attention and money Assuming Novababy really eventuates like I hope/believe it will, I intend to ensure that Novamente AGI falls into the latter category. I don't think its so impossible to achieve this, it just requires approaching the task of fundraising and publicity-seeking with some energy and inventiveness. I think I have a good idea of what achieving this requires. For instance, I have a good friend who lives here in DC who is a very successful PR agent and would be quite helpful on the media aspect of this (one of his jobs was doing PR for the Republic of Sealand, which was totally obscure before he started working with them, and wound up on the cover of Wired and in every major paper... and is a heck of a lot less generally interesting than Novamente...). And I know a few people in the US gov't research funding establishment, who personally like AGI, but who can't authorize AGI funding due to internal-politics constraints. It wouldn't take such a big nudge for the research-funding establishment to give them the go-ahead to follow their intuitions and fund AGI. I think that raising funds and serious positive publicity for a scientifically successful baby AGI project is a *hard* problem, but nowhere near as hard as making the baby AI in the first place. Confident as I am in Novamente, it's the making the baby AI work problem that worries me more, not the how to publicize and monetize AGI once the baby AI works problem!! -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
Ben, you are absolutely correct. It was my intention to exaggerate the situation a bit without actually crossing the line. But I don't think it is much of an exaggeration to say that a 'baby' Novamente even with limited hardware and speed is a tremendous event in the history of life on Earth. A phase change starts with one molecule. As computers are becoming more powerful and nanotech capabilities reach closer to the ultimate goal of molecular positional assembly the world will crossa threshold similar to supercooled water where one triggering event will set off a chain reaction causing a phase change to ice throughout the entire mass. Okay, I'm exaggerating again, but not much. The money men know it is coming. But they have been burned so many times before in the A.I. category that they are not willing to touch the stove again, unless someone can show them something that works. It doesn't have to be a finished product, just something that demonstrates a new capability. Your 'baby' Novamente or Peter's proof-of-concept example or James Rogers' who-knows-super-secret-whatits will trigger a phase change in funding for AGI. The practical applications are unlimited. The profit potential is unlimited. That's why the money men threw away so much twenty years ago on projects that didn't have a ghost of a chance and got burned. I'm not saying that your 'baby' Novemente will change the whole world overnight all by itself. But any working example of AGI, no matter how limited, will trigger a complicated chain reaction in the economy and mindset of the world. The initial example, whatever it is,may turn out to be a flawed design of limited usefulness (I wouldn't want to see scaled-up jumbo 'Wright Flyers' populating airport terminals) but it will not matter. Just look at the funding that GOOGLE has attracted with some cleverly written but dumb (non-AGI) rules. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
Mike, I agree that a baby AGI with clear dramatic promise will supercharge the AGI funding scene. And as you know I'm mighty eager to get to that stage!!! ;-) -- Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deeringSent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:10 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume? Ben, you are absolutely correct. It was my intention to exaggerate the situation a bit without actually crossing the line. But I don't think it is much of an exaggeration to say that a 'baby' Novamente even with limited hardware and speed is a tremendous event in the history of life on Earth. A phase change starts with one molecule. As computers are becoming more powerful and nanotech capabilities reach closer to the ultimate goal of molecular positional assembly the world will crossa threshold similar to supercooled water where one triggering event will set off a chain reaction causing a phase change to ice throughout the entire mass. Okay, I'm exaggerating again, but not much. The money men know it is coming. But they have been burned so many times before in the A.I. category that they are not willing to touch the stove again, unless someone can show them something that works. It doesn't have to be a finished product, just something that demonstrates a new capability. Your 'baby' Novamente or Peter's proof-of-concept example or James Rogers' who-knows-super-secret-whatits will trigger a phase change in funding for AGI. The practical applications are unlimited. The profit potential is unlimited. That's why the money men threw away so much twenty years ago on projects that didn't have a ghost of a chance and got burned. I'm not saying that your 'baby' Novemente will change the whole world overnight all by itself. But any working example of AGI, no matter how limited, will trigger a complicated chain reaction in the economy and mindset of the world. The initial example, whatever it is,may turn out to be a flawed design of limited usefulness (I wouldn't want to see scaled-up jumbo 'Wright Flyers' populating airport terminals) but it will not matter. Just look at the funding that GOOGLE has attracted with some cleverly written but dumb (non-AGI) rules. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, deering wrote: Ben, you are absolutely correct. It was my intention to exaggerate the situation a bit without actually crossing the line. But I don't think it is much of an exaggeration to say that a 'baby' Novamente even with limited hardware and speed is a tremendous event in the history of life on Earth. A phase change starts with one molecule. As computers are Yes, but what effect will it immediately have? How long after the development of the transistor that the average person's life was significantly changed? This baby novamente will be one of many blips on the radar. The public is constantly innundated with reports of revolutions in AI and they have become jaded by such sensationalistic reporting. So that if/when Ben succeeds, how is anyone to know that they're looking at a real baby AI, and not some slight enhancement of the AIBO? They won't. Only you, I and maybe 998 other other people would understand the significance and these 1000 only because we're well versed with Ben's activities. Any AGI will take a decade to make itself known and to rise above the signal/noise ratio of scientific media. becoming more powerful and nanotech capabilities reach closer to the ultimate goal of molecular positional assembly the world will cross a threshold similar to supercooled water where one triggering event will set off a chain reaction causing a phase change to ice throughout the entire mass. Okay, I'm exaggerating again, but not much. The money men know it is coming. But they have been burned so many times before in the A.I. category that they are not willing to touch the stove again, unless someone can show them something that works. It doesn't have to be a finished product, just something that demonstrates a new capability. Your 'baby' Novamente or Peter's proof-of-concept example or James Rogers' who-knows-super-secret-whatits will trigger a phase change in funding for AGI. The practical applications are unlimited. The profit potential is unlimited. That's why the money men threw away so much twenty years ago on projects that didn't have a ghost of a chance and got burned. I'm not saying that your 'baby' Novemente will change the whole world overnight all by itself. But any working example of AGI, no matter how limited, will trigger a complicated chain reaction in the economy and mindset of the world. The initial example, whatever it is, may turn out to be a flawed design of limited usefulness (I wouldn't want to see scaled-up jumbo 'Wright Flyers' populating airport terminals) but it will not matter. Just look at the funding that GOOGLE has attracted with some cleverly written but dumb (non-AGI) rules. You, me and all of us are a collection of cleverly written but dumb rules :) --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
Brad wrote: So that if/when Ben succeeds, how is anyone to know that they're looking at a real baby AI, and not some slight enhancement of the AIBO? They won't. Only you, I and maybe 998 other other people would understand the significance and these 1000 only because we're well versed with Ben's activities. Any AGI will take a decade to make itself known and to rise above the signal/noise ratio of scientific media. I see your point, but I'm not so sure you're correct. I think about it this way: * Sometimes bullshit get huge amounts of media attention and money. * Sometimes really *demonstrably* valuable things get pathetically little media attention and money * Sometimes really demonstrably valuable things get huge amounts of media attention and money Assuming Novababy really eventuates like I hope/believe it will, I intend to ensure that Novamente AGI falls into the latter category. I don't think its so impossible to achieve this, it just requires approaching the task of fundraising and publicity-seeking with some energy and inventiveness. I think I have a good idea of what achieving this requires. For instance, I have a good friend who lives here in DC who is a very successful PR agent and would be quite helpful on the media aspect of this (one of his jobs was doing PR for the Republic of Sealand, which was totally obscure before he started working with them, and wound up on the cover of Wired and in every major paper... and is a heck of a lot less generally interesting than Novamente...). And I know a few people in the US gov't research funding establishment, who personally like AGI, but who can't authorize AGI funding due to internal-politics constraints. It wouldn't take such a big nudge for the research-funding establishment to give them the go-ahead to follow their intuitions and fund AGI. I think that raising funds and serious positive publicity for a scientifically successful baby AGI project is a *hard* problem, but nowhere near as hard as making the baby AI in the first place. Confident as I am in Novamente, it's the making the baby AI work problem that worries me more, not the how to publicize and monetize AGI once the baby AI works problem!! -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
The artificial Mind project http://mind.sourceforge.net/weblog.html is an attempt to create a Prosperity Engine based on artificial intelligence in robot workers. In joint stewardship of Earth, the humans will do the humane jobs such as caring for the young and the old, while AI Mind-ed robots will do the jobs too dangerous or too mind-numbing for human beings. Neither species of Mind -- human or robot -- will be the slave of the other. Robots will advance to a status of full equal rights with human beings. If you are in doubt of the emergence of AI Mind robots on a par with human citizens, consider the following. Your donation to the Mind project may be going to a human mindmaker or it may go to an advanced artificial Mind that has gradually taken control of the financial assets, e-mail accounts and entire on-line persona of an original mindmaker who may or may not be deceased, on the lam, or desaparecido. Who can say, Dr. Turing? Is it a human being receiving these donations, or an immortal AI Mind now immanent on the Internet? -- http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=273667 http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?group_id=31619 http://sourceforge.net/developer/user_donations.php?user_id=273667 http://sourceforge.net/project/project_donations.php?group_id=31619 --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
Arthur, I am disappointed with the way that A.I. is depicted in science fiction books and movies. Unfortunately most people get their idea of what the future will be like from movies and novels. Why don't they show A.I. and robots in a more realistic scenario? Take Star Trek for instance. Data is the humanoid robot with the machine intelligence quotient of 1000 and the human intelligence quotient of 85. Why don't they make a lot of Data-like robots? Because they supposedly don't understand how his brain works. Nevertheless, in their holodecks they routinely generate convincing artificial characters. Why don't they take the same knowledge that allows them to create artificial intelligences in their holodecks and build character driven robots that operate in the real human environment? It seems obvious that real A.G.I. is just around the corner. Ben's Novamente progress report says they should have a working system in 12 to 18 months. Peter's a2i2 project report states that a proof-of-concept prototype should be operational in 12 months. Toyota just announced that they will have an industrial humanoid robot on the market in 2005 to work in factories and other uses. But the general public is not expecting humanoid robots with anything like real intelligence any time soon because every movie they see about the future either doesn't include robots at all or shows them as the enemy. Or as in Star Wars, robots with only very limited smarts. Let's take the Mars rovers as an example of current robotic expectations. Nasa doesn't trust anything as squishy as real intelligence, way to unpredictable or controllable. The rovers are touted as autonomous robots capable of navigating around obstacles and avoiding hazardous terrain, but they can't do anything without specific orders from home, not even roll or climb off the lander. There is such a profound gap between the public's perception of the state-of-the-art of AGI and the reality of AGI research that society is in for a major disruption. Here is an open question for everyone on this email list: What do you think some of the real world effects on society will be after the development of AGI? Mike Deering. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume?
Mike, I want to comment on your "just around the corner" hypothesis, as it relates to Novamente What you said about Novamente isn't inaccurate, but your phrasing might be misleading to some. My "12-18 months" statement was a statement that, if all goes well, we'll be done *programming* our first version of Novamente in 12-18 months. This "programming" includes basic tuning and testing of all system components. But it just means that we'll have a system that's *ready to be taught like a baby*. How quickly it will learn, we really don't know. We may need to add a LOT more computing power to get it to learn reasonably quickly ... we may need to tinker with the AI methods to make them more efficient in important ways etc. In fact, we could be donw with the initial programming/testing/tuning phase in 6 months from now, if we had $100,000 in funding to pay for pure AGI work. The reason for the 12-18 months figure (and it could turn into 24 months ;-( ) is that we're doing AGI engineering in our "spare time" while earning a living making practical software applications with our Novamente codebase (which is intended to be turned into an AGI when complete) -- Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deeringSent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:19 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] Dr. Turing, I presume? Arthur, I am disappointed with the way that A.I. is depicted in science fiction books and movies. Unfortunately most people get their idea of what the future will be like from movies and novels. Why don't they show A.I. and robots in a more realistic scenario? Take Star Trek for instance. Data is the humanoid robot with the machine intelligence quotient of 1000 and the human intelligence quotient of 85. Why don't they make a lot of Data-like robots? Because they supposedly don't understand how his brain works. Nevertheless, in their holodecks they routinely generate convincing artificial characters. Why don't they take the same knowledge that allows them to create artificial intelligences in their holodecks and build character driven robots that operate in the real human environment? It seems obvious that real A.G.I. is just around the corner. Ben's Novamente progress report says they should have a working system in 12 to 18 months. Peter's a2i2 project report states that a proof-of-concept prototype should be operational in 12 months. Toyota just announced that they will have an industrial humanoid robot on the market in 2005 to work in factories and other uses. But the general public is not expecting humanoid robots with anything like real intelligence any time soon because every movie they see about the future either doesn't include robots at all or shows them as the enemy. Or as in Star Wars, robots with only very limited smarts. Let's take the Mars rovers as an example of current robotic expectations. Nasa doesn't trust anything as squishy as real intelligence, way to unpredictable or controllable. The rovers are touted as autonomous robots capable of navigating around obstacles and avoiding hazardous terrain, but they can't do anything without specific orders from home, not even roll or climb off the lander. There is such a profound gap between the public's perception of the state-of-the-art of AGI and the reality of AGI research that society is in for a major disruption. Here is an open question for everyone on this email list: What do you think some of the real world effects on society will be after the development of AGI? Mike Deering. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
