Re: [agi] AGI introduction
Hi Pei, I'm giving a presentation to CityU of Hong Kong new week, on AGI in general and about my project. Can I use your listing of representative AGIs in one slide? Also, if I spend 1 slide to talk about NARS, what phrases would you recommand? ;) Thanks a lot! YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/26/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Pei, I'm giving a presentation to CityU of Hong Kong new week, on AGI in general and about my project. Can I use your listing of representative AGIs in one slide? Sure --- it is already in public domain. Also, if I spend 1 slide to talk about NARS, what phrases would you recommand? ;) The first two sentences under NARS in the list. Pei Thanks a lot! YKY This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
Pei Wang wrote: Hi, I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. This looks pretty good to me. My compliments. (And now the inevitable however...) However, the distinction you intended between capability and principle did not become clear to me until I looked at the very last table, which classified AI architectures. I was initially quite surprised to see AIXI listed as principle and Cyc listed as capability. I had read capability - to solve hard problems as meaning the power to optimize a utility function, like the sort of thing AIXI does to its reward button, which when combined with the unified column would designate an AI approach that derived every element by backward chaining from the desired environmental impact. But it looks like you meant capability in the sense that the designers had a particular hard AI subproblem in mind, like natural language. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
Understood. The distinction isn't explained in the short introduction at all, and that is why I linked to my paper http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Definitions.pdf , which explains it in a semi-formal manner. Pei On 6/24/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pei Wang wrote: Hi, I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. This looks pretty good to me. My compliments. (And now the inevitable however...) However, the distinction you intended between capability and principle did not become clear to me until I looked at the very last table, which classified AI architectures. I was initially quite surprised to see AIXI listed as principle and Cyc listed as capability. I had read capability - to solve hard problems as meaning the power to optimize a utility function, like the sort of thing AIXI does to its reward button, which when combined with the unified column would designate an AI approach that derived every element by backward chaining from the desired environmental impact. But it looks like you meant capability in the sense that the designers had a particular hard AI subproblem in mind, like natural language. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
Thanks for putting this together! If I were to put myself into your theory of AI research, I would probably be roughly included in the Structure-AI and Capability-AI (better descriptions of the brain and computer programs that have more capabilities). I haven't heard of a lot of these systems current Capabilities. A lot of them are pretty old--like SOAR and ACT-R. I tried finding literature on the success of some of these architectures, but most of the available literature was in the theory of theories of AI category. The SOAR literature, for example, is massive and mostly focused on small independent projects. Are there large real-world problems that have been solved by these systems? I would find Capability links very useful if they were added. Bo On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) Hi, ) ) I put a brief introduction to AGI at ) http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI ) Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. ) ) It is basically a bunch of links and quotations organized according to ) my opinion. Hopefully it can help some newcomers to get a big picture ) of the idea and the field. ) ) Pei ) ) - ) This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email ) To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: ) http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/23/07, Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for putting this together! If I were to put myself into your theory of AI research, I would probably be roughly included in the Structure-AI and Capability-AI (better descriptions of the brain and computer programs that have more capabilities). It is a reasonable position, though in the long run you may have to choose between the two, since they often conflict. I haven't heard of a lot of these systems current Capabilities. A lot of them are pretty old--like SOAR and ACT-R. At the current stage, no AGI system has achieved remarkable capability. In the list, the ones have most practical applications are probably Cyc, SOAR, and ACT-R. I tried finding literature on the success of some of these architectures, but most of the available literature was in the theory of theories of AI category. The SOAR literature, for example, is massive and mostly focused on small independent projects. Soar and ACT-R, in their current form, are programming languages and platforms, in the sense that whoever use them are responsible for writing models in them. Therefore, to say Soar is general-purpose is like saying Java is general-purpose --- the system can be applied in many domains, but each application is indeed a small independent project. It is already very different from what Newell had in mind at the beginning of Soar. Are there large real-world problems that have been solved by these systems? I would find Capability links very useful if they were added. I don't think there is any such solution, though that is not the major issue they face as AGI projects. As I analyzed in the paper on AI definitions, they are not designed with Capability as the primary goal. Pei Bo On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) Hi, ) ) I put a brief introduction to AGI at ) http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI ) Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. ) ) It is basically a bunch of links and quotations organized according to ) my opinion. Hopefully it can help some newcomers to get a big picture ) of the idea and the field. ) ) Pei ) ) - ) 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=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/22/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. I think that hybrid and integrated descriptions are useful, especially when seeing AGI in the broader context of agent systems, but they need to be further elaborated (I posted about TouringMachines hoping to bring that up). For me, now, they seem almost co-extensive. As for the meaning, to me, hybrid means integrated at the level of engineering, and integrative means integrated, (rather by synthesis than dominance), at the conceptual level. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/23/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that hybrid and integrated descriptions are useful, especially when seeing AGI in the broader context of agent systems, but they need to be further elaborated (I posted about TouringMachines hoping to bring that up). For me, now, they seem almost co-extensive. As for the meaning, to me, hybrid means integrated at the level of engineering, and integrative means integrated, (rather by synthesis than dominance), at the conceptual level. For example, the RL book shows how to integrate planning and reactive reinforcement at the conceptual level. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) On 6/23/07, Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ) ) Thanks for putting this together! If I were to put myself into your ) theory of AI research, I would probably be roughly included in the ) Structure-AI and Capability-AI (better descriptions of the brain and ) computer programs that have more capabilities). ) ) It is a reasonable position, though in the long run you may have to ) choose between the two, since they often conflict. For example, if one can mentally simulate a computation, it has an analog in the brain. I just want to describe the brain in computer language, which will require much more advanced programming languages to just get computers to simulate things similar to what people can do mentally. -- ) I haven't heard of a lot of these systems current Capabilities. A lot of ) them are pretty old--like SOAR and ACT-R. ) ) At the current stage, no AGI system has achieved remarkable ) capability. In the list, the ones have most practical applications are ) probably Cyc, SOAR, and ACT-R. Well, they've been trying to find Capabilities, for example, I'm no ACT-R expert at all, but I read a paper about how they are looking for correlations between their planner's stack-size and fMRI BOLD signal voxels. This would be a cool Capability in terms of Structural-AI if they were able to pull it off. A simple theory of planning, but slow progress toward Structural-AI. -- ) Are there large real-world problems that have been solved by these ) systems? I would find Capability links very useful if they were added. ) ) I don't think there is any such solution, though that is not the major ) issue they face as AGI projects. As I analyzed in the paper on AI ) definitions, they are not designed with Capability as the primary ) goal. Hmm.. It seems that even if Capability-AI isn't the primary goal of the theory, it must be *one* of the goals. A Human-Scale thinking system is going to have a lot of small milestones of Capability. If any of these systems have reached anything similar to this, which I'm sure many of them have because they've been around for 20-30 years. I'm no expert on any of these systems, but I'm just trying to find how successful each has been in terms of Capability, which is seems much be at least a distant subgoal of all of them. Even if they are purely theoretical, they must be created with the intention of creating other theories that do have Capabilities?! Bo ) Pei ) ) Bo ) ) On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) ) ) Hi, ) ) ) ) I put a brief introduction to AGI at ) ) http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI ) ) Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. ) ) ) ) It is basically a bunch of links and quotations organized according to ) ) my opinion. Hopefully it can help some newcomers to get a big picture ) ) of the idea and the field. ) ) ) ) Pei ) ) ) ) - ) ) 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/?; ) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 22/06/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. It is basically a bunch of links and quotations organized according to my opinion. Hopefully it can help some newcomers to get a big picture of the idea and the field. Pei I like the overview, but I don't think it captures every possible type of AGI design approach. And may constrain peoples thoughts as to the possibilities overly. Mine, I would describe as foundationalist/integrative. That is while we need to integrate our knowledge of sensing/planning/natural/reasoning language, this needs to be done in the correct foundation architecture. My theory is that the computer architecture has to be more brain-like than a simple stored program architecture in order to allow resource constrained AI to implemented efficiently. The way that I am investigating, is an architecture that can direct the changing of the programs by allowing self-directed changes to the stored programs that are better for following a goal, to persist. Changes can come from any source (proof, random guess, translations of external suggestions), so speed of change is not an issue. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
- Will Pearson: My theory is that the computer architecture has to be more brain-like than a simple stored program architecture in order to allow resource constrained AI to implemented efficiently. The way that I am investigating, is an architecture that can direct the changing of the programs by allowing self-directed changes to the stored programs that are better for following a goal, to persist. Changes can come from any source (proof, random guess, translations of external suggestions), so speed of change is not an issue. What's the difference between a stored program and the brain's programs that allows these self-directed changes to come about? (You seem to be trying to formulate something v. fundamental). And what kind of human mental activity do you see as evidence of the brain's different kind of programs? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/23/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that hybrid and integrated descriptions are useful, especially when seeing AGI in the broader context of agent systems, but they need to be further elaborated (I posted about TouringMachines hoping to bring that up). For me, now, they seem almost co-extensive. As for the meaning, to me, hybrid means integrated at the level of engineering, and integrative means integrated, (rather by synthesis than dominance), at the conceptual level. I use these two words to distinguish the integration in AGI projects (e.g., Novamente ...) and the integration in mainstream AI, such as the works reported in the Integrated Intelligence Special Track of AAAI, though none of the latter type has reached the level of AGI yet. Of course, the boundary is not absolute, but the difference is still quite clear. According to mainstream AI people, all current AI research may contribute to AGI (since the special-purpose tools can be integrated), but according to the AGI people, even an integrated approach should start at the big picture. Pei - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/23/07, Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Pei Wang wrote: ) On 6/23/07, Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ) ) Thanks for putting this together! If I were to put myself into your ) theory of AI research, I would probably be roughly included in the ) Structure-AI and Capability-AI (better descriptions of the brain and ) computer programs that have more capabilities). ) ) It is a reasonable position, though in the long run you may have to ) choose between the two, since they often conflict. For example, if one can mentally simulate a computation, it has an analog in the brain. I just want to describe the brain in computer language, which will require much more advanced programming languages to just get computers to simulate things similar to what people can do mentally. Sure you can, but this is mostly what I call Structure-AI. Capability-AI is more about practical problem solving, while whether the process follows the human-way doesn't matter, as in Deep Blue. Hmm.. It seems that even if Capability-AI isn't the primary goal of the theory, it must be *one* of the goals. Of course. Everyone has practical application in mind, and the difference is how much priority this goal has, compared with the other goals. Pei - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/23/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the overview, but I don't think it captures every possible type of AGI design approach. And may constrain peoples thoughts as to the possibilities overly. Of course I didn't claim that, and I'm sorry if it is understood that way. What I listed under Representative AGI Projects are just AGI-oriented projects with enough materials to be analyzed and criticized. I surely know that there are many people working on other ideas, and at the current time it is way too early to say which one will work. I just don't think it is possible to list all the possibilities, so for beginners, the relatively more mature ones are better places to start. Even if they don't like the ideas (I don't agree with many of the ideas myself), at least they should know what have been proposed and explored to certain depth. I'll be glad to include more and more projects into the list in the future, as far as they satisfy the criteria set before the list. Pei - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Foundational/Integrative approach was Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 23/06/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Will Pearson: My theory is that the computer architecture has to be more brain-like than a simple stored program architecture in order to allow resource constrained AI to implemented efficiently. The way that I am investigating, is an architecture that can direct the changing of the programs by allowing self-directed changes to the stored programs that are better for following a goal, to persist. Changes can come from any source (proof, random guess, translations of external suggestions), so speed of change is not an issue. What's the difference between a stored program and the brain's programs that allows these self-directed changes to come about? (You seem to be trying to formulate something v. fundamental). I think the brains programs have the ability to protect their own storage from interference from other programs. The architecture will only allow programs that have proven themselves better* to be able to override this protection on other programs if they request it. If you look at the brain it is fundamentally distributed and messy. To stop errors propagating as they do in stored program architectures you need something more decentralised than the current attempted dictatorial kernel control. It is instructive to look at how the stored program architectures have been struggling to secure against buffer overruns, to protect against code that has been inserted subverting the rest of the machine. Measures that have been taken include the No execute bits on non-programmatic memory and randomising where programs are stored in memory so they can't be overwritten. You are even getting to the stage in trusted computing where you aren't allowed to access certain portions of memory unless you have the correct cryptographic credentials. I would rather go another way. If you have some form of knowledge of what a program is worth embedded in the architecture, then you should be able to limit these sorts of problems, and allow more experimentation. If you try self-modifying and experimenting code on a simple stored program system, it will generally cause errors and lots of problems, when things go wrong, as there are no safeguards to what the program can do. You can lock the experimental code in a sand box, as in genetic programming, but then it can't replace older code or change the methods of experimentation. You can also use formal proof, but then that limits a lot what sources of information you can use as inspiration for the experiment. My approach allows an experimental bit of code, if it proves itself by being useful, to take the place of other code, if it happens to be coded to take over the function as well. And what kind of human mental activity do you see as evidence of the brain's different kind of programs? Addiction. Or the general goal optimising behaviour of the various different parts of the brain. That we notice things more if they are important to us, which implies that our noticing functionality improves dependent upon what our goal is. Also the general pervasiveness of the dopaminergic neural system, that I think has an important function in determining which programs or neural areas are being useful. * I shall now get back to how code is determined to be useful. Interestingly it is somewhat like the credit attribution for how much work people have done on the agi projects that some people have been discussing. My current thinking is something like this. There is a fixed function, that can recognise manifestly good and bad situations, it provides a value every so often to all the programs than have control of an output. If things are going well, some food is found, the value goes up an injury is sustained the value goes down. Basic reinforcement learning idea. The value becomes in the architecture a fungible, distributable, but conserved, resource. Analogous to money, although when used to overwrite something it is removed dependent upon hoe useful the program overwritten was. The outputting programs pass it back to the programs that have given them they information they needed to output, whether that information is from long term memory or processed from the environment. These second tier programs pass it further back. However the method of determining who gets the credit doesn't have to always be a simplistic function, they can have heuristics on how to distribute the utility based on the information they get from each of its partners. As these heuristics are just part of each program they can change as well. So in the end you get an economy of programs that aren't forced to do anything. Just those that perform well can overwrite those that don't do so well. It is a very loose constraint on what the system actually does. On top of this in order to get an AGI you would integrate everything we know about language, senses, naive physics, mimicry and other things yet discovered. Also adding the new knowledge we
Re: Foundational/Integrative approach was Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, William Pearson wrote: ) I think the brains programs have the ability to protect their own ) storage from interference from other programs. The architecture will ) only allow programs that have proven themselves better* to be able to ) override this protection on other programs if they request it. ) ) If you look at the brain it is fundamentally distributed and messy. To ) stop errors propagating as they do in stored program architectures you ) need something more decentralised than the current attempted ) dictatorial kernel control. This is only partially true, and mainly only for the neocortex, right? For example, removing small parts of the brainstem result in coma. ) The value becomes in the architecture a fungible, distributable, but ) conserved, resource. Analogous to money, although when used to ) overwrite something it is removed dependent upon hoe useful the ) program overwritten was. The outputting programs pass it back to the ) programs that have given them they information they needed to output, ) whether that information is from long term memory or processed from ) the environment. These second tier programs pass it further back. ) However the method of determining who gets the credit doesn't have to ) always be a simplistic function, they can have heuristics on how to ) distribute the utility based on the information they get from each of ) its partners. As these heuristics are just part of each program they ) can change as well. Are there elaborations (or a general name that I could look up) on this theory--sounds good? For example, you're referring to multiple tiers of organization, which sound like larger scale organizations that maybe have been further discussed elsewhere? It sounds like there are intricate dependency networks that must be maintained, for starters. A lot of supervision and support code that does this--or is that evolved in the system also? -- Bo - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Foundational/Integrative approach was Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 24/06/07, Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, William Pearson wrote: ) I think the brains programs have the ability to protect their own ) storage from interference from other programs. The architecture will ) only allow programs that have proven themselves better* to be able to ) override this protection on other programs if they request it. ) ) If you look at the brain it is fundamentally distributed and messy. To ) stop errors propagating as they do in stored program architectures you ) need something more decentralised than the current attempted ) dictatorial kernel control. This is only partially true, and mainly only for the neocortex, right? For example, removing small parts of the brainstem result in coma. I'm talking about control in memory access, and by memory access I am referring to synaptic In a coma, the other bits of the brain may still be doing things. Not inputting or outputting, but possibly other useful things (equivalents of defragmentation, who knows). Sleep is important for learning, and a coma is an equivalent state to deep sleep. Just one that cannot be ) The value becomes in the architecture a fungible, distributable, but ) conserved, resource. Analogous to money, although when used to ) overwrite something it is removed dependent upon hoe useful the ) program overwritten was. The outputting programs pass it back to the ) programs that have given them they information they needed to output, ) whether that information is from long term memory or processed from ) the environment. These second tier programs pass it further back. ) However the method of determining who gets the credit doesn't have to ) always be a simplistic function, they can have heuristics on how to ) distribute the utility based on the information they get from each of ) its partners. As these heuristics are just part of each program they ) can change as well. Are there elaborations (or a general name that I could look up) on this theory--sounds good? For example, you're referring to multiple tiers of organization, which sound like larger scale organizations that maybe have been further discussed elsewhere? Sorry. It is pretty much all just me at the moment, and the higher tiers of organisation are just fragments that I know will need to be implemented or planned for, but have no concrete ideas for at the moment. I haven't written up everything at the low level either, because I am not working on this full time. I hope to start a PhD on it soon, although I don't know where. It will mainly working on the trying to get a theory of how to design the systems properly, so that the system will only reward those programs that do well and won't encourage defectors to spoil what other programs are doing, based on game theory and economic theory. That is the level I am mainly concentrating on right now. It sounds like there are intricate dependency networks that must be maintained, for starters. A lot of supervision and support code that does this--or is that evolved in the system also? My rule of thumb is to try to put as much as possible into the changeable/evolving section, but code it by hand to start with if is needed for the system to start to do some work. The only reason to keep it on the outside is if the system would be unstable with it on the inside, e.g. the functions that give out reward. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Foundational/Integrative approach was Re: [agi] AGI introduction
Sorry, sent accidentally while half finished. Bo wrote: This is only partially true, and mainly only for the neocortex, right? For example, removing small parts of the brainstem result in coma. I'm talking about control in memory access, and by memory access I am referring to synaptic changes in the brain. While the brain stem has dictatorial control over conciousness and activity it does not necessarily control all activity in the brain in terms of memory and how it changes. Which is what I am interested in. In a coma, the other bits of the brain may still be doing things. Not inputting or outputting, but possibly other useful things (equivalents of defragmentation, who knows). Sleep is important for learning, and a coma is an equivalent brain state to deep sleep. Just one that cannot be stopped in the usual fashion. Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] AGI introduction
Hi, I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. It is basically a bunch of links and quotations organized according to my opinion. Hopefully it can help some newcomers to get a big picture of the idea and the field. Pei - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/22/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. Thanks! As a first note, SAIL seems to me a better replacement for Cog, because SAIL has much generality and some theoretical accomplishment where Cog is (AFAIK) hand-crafted engineering. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
Pei: I put a brief introduction to AGI at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/AGI-Intro.htm , including an AGI Overview followed by Representative AGI Projects. Very helpful. Thankyou. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] AGI introduction
On 6/22/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a first note, SAIL seems to me a better replacement for Cog, because SAIL has much generality and some theoretical accomplishment where Cog is (AFAIK) hand-crafted engineering. In many aspects, I agree that SAIL is more interesting than Cog. I include Cog in the list, because it is explicitly based on a theory about intelligence as a whole (see http://groups.csail.mit.edu/lbr/hrg/1998/group-AAAI-98.pdf), while in SAIL such a theory is not very clear. Of course, this boundary is fuzzy, so I may include SAIL in a future version of the list, depending on the development of the project. Pei - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Introduction (searching for research, PhD), Open Source AI?
Dear yky and Jiri Jelinek,AGI PROJECTunder unsupervised learning I meant compression of facts, rules, inputs. The similarities derived form the compression can be used as instinctual associations between different ideas, and also to reduce the size of the KB. The basic operation in my system is also pattern recognition, and I am planning to implement reasoning (different logic systems, beginning with 1st order) over the pattern matching layer. (The PRS supports forward and backward chaining.) I am not familiar with statistical pattern recognition. Does this mean, that each pattern (or condition) has a certain probability based on the probability of the sub patterns in it? If so, that sounds useful. I am palling to implement features like this also on the top of the PRS. I am using PRS (well, with chaining a bit more powerful framework), since it seems to be flexible enough for a self-modifying AI, and also the RETE algorithm ensures the efficient executions of rules of which the condition might have came true. I think our projects are pretty similar (the basic difference is - which I suppose based on your questions -, that you might have based the system on probability, and build pattern matching over that?, while I am doing the opposite). I am interested in your project... SAFE AGII agree Jiri Jelinek, I think also, that easier problems should be targeted for first (e.g. reasoning), and then the computationally heavy problems. (And also knowledge grounding is not a problem until one has any sensors, and actuators being textual, visual or any type) What do you mean under, SIAI visions over the top? For me it seems to be rational. If we suppose the AGI is a rational being, then the goal: Do what you think that I want you to do will control the self improvement also in the right direction. Or am I wrong? From this point of view also the hierarchical system seems to be unnecessary (although it might be good for the sake of security). And I think if we cant make a single AGI safe, then the hierarchy is also dangerous. The hierarchy might have bigger security form statistical point of view, but if the AGIs in it are more clever than us or each other, that might mean some problem. Is it possible to create a not selfish institute from selfish individuals? (I think they will start to cooperate for more profit) Best wishes,MárkOn 12/21/05, Yan King Yin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Mark: MY LITTLE AGI PROJECT Since I started my studies I was interested in AI and creating AGI, thus I tried to learn as much as possible about various AI disciplines, to unify them later. In my spare time, I am working on a Production Rule System with reasoning abilities, which I plan to program/teach for the usage of various AI techniques (such as EA, RL, classification, unsupervised learning...), to evolve and develop the rules and facts in the system. I am interested about your opinion about a system like this. Your system sounds interesting, although it's not an entire AGI framework. You're on the right track trying to unify various AI approaches (such as planning, reasoning, perception, etc). I have some basic ideas of how to build an AGI, but my project is still in its infancy. I'd welcome other researchers to joinmy open sourceproject. My AGI theory is based on the compression of sensory experience, and the basic operation is pattern recognition. Traditional production rule systems may be a bit too limited because they cannot perform probabilistic inference, or statistical pattern recognition. Right now we're focusing on vision, which turns out to be extremely hard. Re your analysis of AGI social issues: I think there should be some sort of built-in AGImechanisms that prevents it from doing harmful things, although the exact form of it is still unclear to me. The folks at SIAI have thought about this issue much more intensely, but I think their vision is a bit over the top. Secondly I agree that AGImay create more social inequality between those who knows how to exploit AGI and those who are left behind. I'm afraid this is also inevitable. The best we can do is to try to ameliorate such effects. The good side to it is that AGI will be very easy to use because it can understand human language. Cheers, yky 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] Introduction (searching for research, PhD), Open Source AI?
Márk, My suggestion is to first develop AGI (partly open source would be IMO OK - you don't have to hide everything) and then mess with the moral issues and related system restrictions for certain groups of users. BTW I'm optimistic when it comes to our future with AGI. AGI (after some significant learning) can help us to solve all kinds of problems including the social issues and incompatibilities of value systems of various subjects (=key source of conflicts). humans being useless after the creating of AGI, having no job World will certainly change and there might be some tough transition stages if we let things go too fast, but eventually, I believe we are simply not gonna need to have a job. Hard work for machines; fun for us. They will not mind at all if designed properly.But I really think we better focus on the AGI how to at this point. In my AGI RD, it's mainly the knowledge representation problem at this point. Sincerely, Jiri JelinekOn 12/17/05, Mark Horvath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear AGI People,before asking and writing my opinion about the dangers of AGI, I would like to introduce myself and my activity in AI. MEI studied as Programmer Mathematician in Hungary and in the last year I changed my degree to Artificial Intelligence in Netherlands. I have just finished this degree, and now I am searching for PhD or research position (detailed CV at http://people.inf.elte.hu/cybe r/MarkHorvath_CV_2005.pdf). MY LITTLE AGI PROJECTSince I started my studies I was interested in AI and creating AGI, thus I tried to learn as much as possible about various AI disciplines, to unify them later. In my spare time, I am working on a Production Rule System with reasoning abilities, which I plan to program/teach for the usage of various AI techniques (such as EA, RL, classification, unsupervised learning...), to evolve and develop the rules and facts in the system. I am interested about your opinion about a system like this. OPEN SOURCE AGI?I was thinking on open sourcing my project (to collect more people on the project), but you are right, AGI can be dangerous if used cleverly, thus now I am thinking things over again... The things I am thinking on are the following: Technical issuesDangers?By my view the primary (technical) danger factor is the usage of AGI to hack computers and spread on the Internet. Do you think on other dangers as well? What else can you do which is even worse than spamming, hacking computers? Do you mean attacking bank system and economy or obtaining huge power with influencing communication? (I'm not familiar enough with stock market, E-commerce and economy.) Company profit instead of laws of Asimov!!I think one way to be safe against AI is to make it really friendly, and not let anyone to change the main laws, which should include things like making this world better for human. This would make necessary to protect the source. The problem with this that no company could use this AI really usefully, since they goal is to get rich, and not make the world better. The AGI would realize fast, that companies are selfish beings. And anyway I agree Sanjay: Power corrupts easily. (See the book Steven Levy: Hackers. Heroes of the Computer Revolution. It writes about the leaders of today's leaders of the commercial computer industry, how free they where thinking before having power...) Hackers would have advantage I think several groups will succeed to create AGI as the computational demands and knowledge about mind will be sufficient. Thus one can easily find or buy one which can be misused. If someone would pay enough money for getting world dominance of hacked computers and AI, that guy would program the AGI based on literature and open source projects as well. He would obtain millions of computers very fast. I think the knowledge for creating AGI is out there already (in pieces). And a big safety problem is that hackers might have a great advantage of having big computationally capacity. I hope there is not a single bad guy being abitious ebough...Will bad guys use the newest technology? On the other hand: How big is this danger? Are you sure that the bad guys would use it? They don't even use AIML techniques to answer mails and spread viruses with that. They don't use genetic algorithms to modify the viruses spreading strategy...Source code not necessary to misuse AGIEven if one does not open source the AI, one can use it for bad purposes by simply teaching and ordering it to do bad things (depending on the level of friendliness in it, but I think that will be weak, for the formerly mentioned reason) A solution to protect us from AGI? (Infecting protection)- Sanjay has written: How to protect general public from misuse of AGI? May be the answer lies in AGI itself - make AGI which can detect such attempts, equip the potential victims with it and let the fight begin on equal ground. Once AGI becomes smarter than humans, only AGI will be able to save humans from itself. I agree, my
[agi] Introduction (searching for research, PhD), Open Source AI?
Dear AGI People,before asking and writing my opinion about the dangers of AGI, I would like to introduce myself and my activity in AI. MEI studied as Programmer Mathematician in Hungary and in the last year I changed my degree to Artificial Intelligence in Netherlands. I have just finished this degree, and now I am searching for PhD or research position (detailed CV at http://people.inf.elte.hu/cyber/MarkHorvath_CV_2005.pdf). MY LITTLE AGI PROJECTSince I started my studies I was interested in AI and creating AGI, thus I tried to learn as much as possible about various AI disciplines, to unify them later. In my spare time, I am working on a Production Rule System with reasoning abilities, which I plan to program/teach for the usage of various AI techniques (such as EA, RL, classification, unsupervised learning...), to evolve and develop the rules and facts in the system. I am interested about your opinion about a system like this. OPEN SOURCE AGI?I was thinking on open sourcing my project (to collect more people on the project), but you are right, AGI can be dangerous if used cleverly, thus now I am thinking things over again... The things I am thinking on are the following: Technical issuesDangers?By my view the primary (technical) danger factor is the usage of AGI to hack computers and spread on the Internet. Do you think on other dangers as well? What else can you do which is even worse than spamming, hacking computers? Do you mean attacking bank system and economy or obtaining huge power with influencing communication? (I'm not familiar enough with stock market, E-commerce and economy.) Company profit instead of laws of Asimov!!I think one way to be safe against AI is to make it really friendly, and not let anyone to change the main laws, which should include things like making this world better for human. This would make necessary to protect the source. The problem with this that no company could use this AI really usefully, since they goal is to get rich, and not make the world better. The AGI would realize fast, that companies are selfish beings. And anyway I agree Sanjay: Power corrupts easily. (See the book Steven Levy: Hackers. Heroes of the Computer Revolution. It writes about the leaders of today's leaders of the commercial computer industry, how free they where thinking before having power...) Hackers would have advantage I think several groups will succeed to create AGI as the computational demands and knowledge about mind will be sufficient. Thus one can easily find or buy one which can be misused. If someone would pay enough money for getting world dominance of hacked computers and AI, that guy would program the AGI based on literature and open source projects as well. He would obtain millions of computers very fast. I think the knowledge for creating AGI is out there already (in pieces). And a big safety problem is that hackers might have a great advantage of having big computationally capacity. I hope there is not a single bad guy being abitious ebough...Will bad guys use the newest technology? On the other hand: How big is this danger? Are you sure that the bad guys would use it? They don't even use AIML techniques to answer mails and spread viruses with that. They don't use genetic algorithms to modify the viruses spreading strategy...Source code not necessary to misuse AGIEven if one does not open source the AI, one can use it for bad purposes by simply teaching and ordering it to do bad things (depending on the level of friendliness in it, but I think that will be weak, for the formerly mentioned reason) A solution to protect us from AGI? (Infecting protection)- Sanjay has written: How to protect general public from misuse of AGI? May be the answer lies in AGI itself - make AGI which can detect such attempts, equip the potential victims with it and let the fight begin on equal ground. Once AGI becomes smarter than humans, only AGI will be able to save humans from itself. I agree, my problem is that I am not sure if people will install the protector AGIs before having real problems. I have an idea to come around this problem, but I am not sure about the legal issues. What if someone writes the hacking AGI before the hackers, and uses it to safe the computers? After hacking a machine it can warn the system administrator/user for the vulnerabilities of the system, and also offer itself to install and protect the vulnerable computer form inside. Is it legal to hack computers with good purpose in any country? My opinion - for the first lookSummarizing the former statements, i think if someone would create AGI now, it would be dangerous to provide it for anyone, the whole public or only paying customers (the latter seems to be even more dangerous for me). But if time comes, anyone (and people with money even easier) can have AGI... Social issuesAnyway I am more afraid from the social dangers of AI; humans being useless after the creating of AGI, having no job, and at this time we cant
[agi] Introduction
Hi, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Lucas Serpa, I am 23 years old from Brazil and I would like to get involved in AGI world extracting as much knowledge as I can and if possible offer some. L.Serpa --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Introduction
Hello Lucas, Welcome to the AGI list! Where in Brazil are you located? I ask because there happen to be a couple folks working on the Novamente AGI project in Belo Horizonte at www.vettalabs.com ... -- Ben On 12/15/05, Lucas Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Lucas Serpa, I am 23 years old from Brazil and I would like to get involved in AGI world extracting as much knowledge as I can and if possible offer some. L.Serpa --- 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] Introduction
I am currently living a few hours from BH in São Paulo. On 12/15/05, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Lucas, Welcome to the AGI list! Where in Brazil are you located? I ask because there happen to be a couple folks working on the Novamente AGI project in Belo Horizonte at www.vettalabs.com ... -- Ben On 12/15/05, Lucas Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Lucas Serpa, I am 23 years old from Brazil and I would like to get involved in AGI world extracting as much knowledge as I can and if possible offer some. L.Serpa --- 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] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[agi] Introduction
Dear Sir, Good day! This is Wanlongbags company.we are a member of bizeurope,so we got your information from them,and we produce all kinds of bags, if you or your friends are interested in this line,pls forward this letter to him tks a lot,pls visit our website www.wanlongbags.com and feel free to feed back.look forward to cooperating with u. otherwise, i am sorry to bother you. Best Wishes! Sincerely Yours, Wanlongbags Co. Ltd - 200MÐéÄâÖ÷»ú+50MÆóÒµÓʾÖ+¶¥¼¶¹ú¼ÊÓòÃû,Ö»Ðè189Ôª/Äê http://www.kldns.net ¹ú¼ÊÓ¢ÎÄÓòÃû 79Ôª/Äê Ãâ·ÑÎÞÏ޴νâÎö http://www.kldns.net »¶Ó¹âÁÙ¿ÆÁ¦ÍøÂ磺http://www.kldns.net http://www.cnkl.net - ..::: JKLMailer PowerBy£ºwww.VRMO.com QQ:5009353 :::. --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] introduction
Damien Sullivan wrote: Hi! I joined this list recently, figured I'd say who I am. Well, some of you may know already, from extropians, where I used to post a fair bit :) or from my Vernor Vinge page. But now I'm a first year comp sci/cog sci PhD student at Indiana University, hoping to work on extending Jim Marshall's Metacat in Hofstadter's lab. Nothing much has really happened beyond hope and a few meetings and taking his group theory class. I've been reading Eliezer's _Levels_ pages, and having Andy Clark's _Being There_ around, but mostly my life has been classes. Mostly the OS class, actually. Sigh. -xx- Damien X-) --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] Damien, Hi. I'm am quite interested in Jim's Metacat also. It's on my To-Do list to get it running under linux... but the way my workload is going I think Jim will get his planned re-write done first. :)It would be interesting to hear about what new directions Metacat is going in. Welcome to the list. Michael Roy Ames --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]