Re: [agi] Poll
On Friday 19 October 2007 10:36:04 pm, Mike Tintner wrote: The best way to get people to learn is to make them figure things out for themselves . Yeah, right. That's why all Americans understand the theory of evolution so well, and why Britons have such an informed acceptance of genetically-modified foods. It's why Galileo had such an easy time convincing the Church that the earth goes around the sun. It's why the Romans widely adopted the steam engine following its invention by Heron of Alexandria. It's why the Inquisition quickly realized that witchcraft is a superstition, rather than burning innocent women at the stake. The truth is exactly the opposite: Humans are built to propagate culture memetically, by copying each other; the amount we know individually by this process is orders of magnitude greater than what we could have figured out for ourselves. Reigning orthodoxy of thought is *very hard* to dislodge, even in the face of plentiful evidence to the contrary. Isaac Asimov famously said that the most exciting moment in science is when someone says, That's funny... But the reason to point it out is that it *doesn't* happen all the time, even in science (it's not normal science in Kuhn's phrase), and even less so outside of it. In the real world, when people get confused and work out a way around it, what they're learning is not an inventive synthesis of the substance at issue, but an attention filter. And that, for the average person, is usually just picking an authority figure. Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die. Humans are *stupid*, Mike. You're still committing the superhuman human fallacy. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55686241-899d6e
Re: [agi] Poll
[...] Reigning orthodoxy of thought is *very hard* to dislodge, even in the face of plentiful evidence to the contrary. Amen, brother! Rem acu tetigisti! That's why http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html is like the small mammals scurrying beneath dinosaurs. ATM -- http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55739919-943f4b
RE: [agi] Poll
be there 'on watch'. EWP Again I dont know what you are referring to here. I understand that timing is important to neuronal patterns, but it seems that such added temporal complexity would only increase the number of bits required for a computer to model the information the brain holds. EWP 1. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/nsae-tsf021706.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/nsae-tsf021706.php Edward W. Porter Porter Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:28 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Poll Edward, Does your estimate consider only amount of information required for *representation*, or it also includes additional processing elements required in neural setting to implement learning? I'm not sure 10^9 is far off, because much more can be required for domain-independent association/correlation catching between (subsymbolic) concepts implemented by groups of synapses(*). Gap of 10^6 is probably about right for this purpose, I can't see how it would be possible with, say, gap of only 10^2. New concepts/correlations/associations can be established between events (spikes) that are not initially aligned in any way, including different delays in time (through axonal delays and spiking sequences), so to catch regularities when and where they happen to appear, big enough amount of synapse groups should be there 'on watch'. - (*) By groups of synapses I mean sets of synapses that can excite a common neuron, but single neuron can host multiple groups of synapses responsible for multiple subsymbolic concepts. It's not neurologically grounded, just a wild theoretic estimate. On 10/19/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney's Thu 10/18/2007 9:15 PM post states MAHONEY There is possibly a 6 order of magnitude gap between the size of a cognitive model of human memory (10^9 bits) and the number of synapses in the brain (10^15), and precious little research to resolve this discrepancy. In fact, these numbers are so poorly known that we aren't even sure there is a gap. EWP This gap, which Matt was so correct to highlight, is an important one, and points out one of the many crippling legacy of the small hardware mindset. EWP I have always been a big believer in memory based reasoning, and for the last 37 years I have always assumed a human level representation of world knowledge would require something like 10^12 to 10^14 bytes, which is 10^13 to 10^15 bits. ( i.e., within several orders of magnitude of the human brain, a phrase I have used so many times before on this list.) My recollection is that after reading Minsky's reading list in 1970 and my taking of K-line theory to heart, the number I guessed at that time for world knowledge was either 10^15 bits or bytes, I forget which. But, of course, my notions then were so primitive compared to what they are today. EWP Should we allow ourselves to think in terms of such big numbers? Yes. Let's take 10^13 bytes, for example. EWP 10^13 bytes with 2/3s of it in non-volatile memory and 10 million simple RAM opp processors, capable of performing about 20 trillion random RAM accesses/sec, and a network with a cross-sectional bandwidth of roughly 45 TBytes/sec (if you ran it hot), should be manufacturable at a marginal cost in 7 years of about $40,000, and could be profitably sold with amortization of development costs for several hundred thousand dollars if there were a market for several thousand of them -- which there almost certainly would be because of their extreme power. EWP Why so much more than the 10^9 bits mentioned above? EWP Because 10^9 bits only stores roughly 1 million atoms (nodes or links) with proper indexing and various state values. Anybody who thinks that is enough to represent human-level world knowledge in all its visual, audio, linguistic, tactile, kinesthetic, emotional, behavioral, and social complexity hasn't thought about it in sufficient depth. EWP For example, my foggy recollection is that Serre's representation of the hierarchical memory associated the portion of the visual cortext from V1 up to the lower level of the pre-frontal cortex (from the paper I have cited so many times on this list) has several million pattern nodes (and, as Josh has pointed out, this is just for the mainly feedforward aspect of visual modeling). This includes nothing for the vast majority of V1 and above, and nothing for audio, language, visual motion, associate cortex, prefrontal cortex, etc. EWP Matt, I am not in any way criticizing you for mentioning 10^9 bits, because I have read similar numbers myself, and your post pointed with very appropriate questioning to the gap between that and what the brain would appear to have the capabilility to represent. This very low number is just another manifestation
Re: [agi] Poll
Josh: People learn best when they recieve simple, progressive, unambiguous instructions or examples. This is why young humans imprint on parent-figures, have heroes, and so forth -- heuristics to cut the clutter and reduce conflict of examples. An AGI that was trying to learn from the Internet from scratch would be very confused -- but that's not a good way to teach it. I'll be happy if I can get my system to learn from me alone. Then I can *teach it* to be able to handle contradictory inputs -- at least to the extent that I can do so myself. Nope. You're taking the obvious line, the simple, top-down, totalitarian line - as indeed most people in AI/AGI do. Nature knows better. The best way to get people to learn complex, problematic activities is not to give them simple instructions - education threw out rote learning and variations thereon, long ago, although it hasn't totally embraced nature's way yet. (And simple unambiguous instructions for any problematic activity are a philosophical, cognitive and practical impossibility. What are Josh's simple unambiguous instructions for how to do sex/ conversation/ tennis/ investing?) The best way to get people to learn is to make them figure things out for themselves . At least you should start to be able to see now that there's a massive - and v. significant - divide between us. P.S. Confusion is a basic psychobiological response of the brain - classically exemplified in the furrowed brow. Like I said, there's no equivalent in computers. Nature doesn't produce something so fundamental without extremely good, functional reason. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55643877-21cf65
Re: [agi] Poll
On Friday 19 October 2007 01:30:43 pm, Mike Tintner wrote: Josh: An AGI needs to be able to watch someone doing something and produce a program such that it can now do the same thing. Sounds neat and tidy. But that's not the way the human mind does it. A vacuous statement, since I stated what needs to be done, not how to do it. We start from ignorance and confusion about how to perform any given skill/ activity Particularly how to build an AGI :-) - and while we then acquire an enormous amount of relevant routines - we never build a whole module or program for any activity. If what you're trying to say is nobody's perfect, well, duh. If you're trying to say humans don't actually acquire skills, speak for yourself. We never stop learning, whether we're committed to that attitude philosophically or not. Some of us never *start* learning... And we never stop being confused. FDSN. Are you certain about how best to write programs? Or have sex? Or a conversation? Or play chess? Or tennis? All our activities, like those, demand and repay a lifetime's study. An AGI will have to have a similar approach to enjoy any success. How stupid of me not to realize that my vague ideas on how to build a program that can learn by watching, would not instantly achieve superhuman, Godlike, mathematically optimal performance on every possible task at first sight. I am awed by the brilliance of this insight. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55547253-8b4a4f
Re: [agi] Poll
Josh: An AGI needs to be able to watch someone doing something and produce a program such that it can now do the same thing. Sounds neat and tidy. But that's not the way the human mind does it. We start from ignorance and confusion about how to perform any given skill/ activity - and while we then acquire an enormous amount of relevant routines - we never build a whole module or program for any activity. We never stop learning, whether we're committed to that attitude philosophically or not. And we never stop being confused. Are you certain about how best to write programs? Or have sex? Or a conversation? Or play chess? Or tennis? All our activities, like those, demand and repay a lifetime's study. An AGI will have to have a similar approach to enjoy any success. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55533242-61d8c5
RE: [agi] Poll
Josh, Great post. Warrants being read multiple times. You said. JOSH I'm working on a formalism that unifies a very high-level programming language (whose own code is a basic datatype, as in lisp), spreading-activation semantic-net-like representational structures, and subsumption-style real-time control architectures. Sounds interesting. I -- and I am sure many others on the list -- look forward to hearing more about it. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:21 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Poll In case anyone else is interested, here are my own responses to these questions. Thanks to all who answered ... 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) I think the biggest gap can be seen in the actual programs themselves. Look at a typical narrow-AI program that *actually does something* (robot car driver, for example) and a typical (!) candidate AGI system. They are entirely different kinds of code, datastructures, etc. An AGI system should have modules that look like the narrow-AI systems for all of the skills it actually has, and when it learns new skills, should then have more such modules. So it would help to have an easier way to write skills programs and have them interact gracefully. An AGI needs to be able to watch someone doing something and produce a program such that it can now do the same thing. The system needs to be self-conscious exactly when it is learning, because that's when it's fitting new subprograms into its own architecture. It has to be able to experiment and practice. It has to be able to adapt old skills into new ones by analogy, *and represent the differences and mappings*, and represent *that* skill in symbolic form so that it can learn meta-skills. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? I'm working on a formalism that unifies a very high-level programming language (whose own code is a basic datatype, as in lisp), spreading-activation semantic-net-like representational structures, and subsumption-style real-time control architectures. 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? Let me try to be a little clearer about the concepts, as there was some dissention w/r their coherence: By a baby mind, I mean a system that can be taught rather than programmed to attain new skills. It certainly won't be like a human baby in any other respect. Furthermore, it's not clear that we'll know when we have one except in retrospect. It's virtually certain that in the coming years there will be many baby mind systems that seem to start learning only to run into unforseen limits. Understanding these limits will be a very natural scientific process. I imagine that in 10 years we'll have the beginnings of a field of unbounded-learning theory and ways of predicting when a given learning system will run out of steam, but we don't now. So we'll probably only know we have a system that learns at an arguably human level after teaching it long enough to know it didn't crap out where its predecessors did. It could happen as quickly as 5 years, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it. 10 is probably more like it, By that time the hardware to do what I think is necessary will not just exist (it does now) but be affordable. That'll let a lot more people try a lot more approaches, hopefully building on each other's successes. Time to adult human-level AI given the baby mind: zero. This is mostly because the bulk of a minimal human experience/common-sense mental inventory will have been built by hand, or learned by earlier, limited learning algorithms, before the real unbounded learner gets here. 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? Here's how I see the field developing: Current approaches are either deep but handbuilt (robot drivers) or general but very shallow (Google). In 10 years, the general ones will be deeper (say, Google can answer 85% of natural-language questions with apparent comprehension; Novamente produces very serviceable NPC's in online games) and the narrow ones are broader but more inportantly, much more numerous. So throughout the 20-teens, AI will seem to take off as people hitch the general systems to collections of narrow ones. The result will be like someone with an IQ of 90 who has a number of idiot-savant skills. They'll pass the Turing test. But they still won't build their own skills. So I'll guess (b) in 10 years, (a) in 15, because the Moore's Law thing still works, lots of people are trying lots of ideas, but it's a harder problem. But I could
Re: [agi] Poll
Edward, Does your estimate consider only amount of information required for *representation*, or it also includes additional processing elements required in neural setting to implement learning? I'm not sure 10^9 is far off, because much more can be required for domain-independent association/correlation catching between (subsymbolic) concepts implemented by groups of synapses(*). Gap of 10^6 is probably about right for this purpose, I can't see how it would be possible with, say, gap of only 10^2. New concepts/correlations/associations can be established between events (spikes) that are not initially aligned in any way, including different delays in time (through axonal delays and spiking sequences), so to catch regularities when and where they happen to appear, big enough amount of synapse groups should be there 'on watch'. - (*) By groups of synapses I mean sets of synapses that can excite a common neuron, but single neuron can host multiple groups of synapses responsible for multiple subsymbolic concepts. It's not neurologically grounded, just a wild theoretic estimate. On 10/19/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney's Thu 10/18/2007 9:15 PM post states MAHONEY There is possibly a 6 order of magnitude gap between the size of a cognitive model of human memory (10^9 bits) and the number of synapses in the brain (10^15), and precious little research to resolve this discrepancy. In fact, these numbers are so poorly known that we aren't even sure there is a gap. EWP This gap, which Matt was so correct to highlight, is an important one, and points out one of the many crippling legacy of the small hardware mindset. EWP I have always been a big believer in memory based reasoning, and for the last 37 years I have always assumed a human level representation of world knowledge would require something like 10^12 to 10^14 bytes, which is 10^13 to 10^15 bits. (i.e., within several orders of magnitude of the human brain, a phrase I have used so many times before on this list.) My recollection is that after reading Minsky's reading list in 1970 and my taking of K-line theory to heart, the number I guessed at that time for world knowledge was either 10^15 bits or bytes, I forget which. But, of course, my notions then were so primitive compared to what they are today. EWP Should we allow ourselves to think in terms of such big numbers? Yes. Let's take 10^13 bytes, for example. EWP 10^13 bytes with 2/3s of it in non-volatile memory and 10 million simple RAM opp processors, capable of performing about 20 trillion random RAM accesses/sec, and a network with a cross-sectional bandwidth of roughly 45 TBytes/sec (if you ran it hot), should be manufacturable at a marginal cost in 7 years of about $40,000, and could be profitably sold with amortization of development costs for several hundred thousand dollars if there were a market for several thousand of them -- which there almost certainly would be because of their extreme power. EWP Why so much more than the 10^9 bits mentioned above? EWP Because 10^9 bits only stores roughly 1 million atoms (nodes or links) with proper indexing and various state values. Anybody who thinks that is enough to represent human-level world knowledge in all its visual, audio, linguistic, tactile, kinesthetic, emotional, behavioral, and social complexity hasn't thought about it in sufficient depth. EWP For example, my foggy recollection is that Serre's representation of the hierarchical memory associated the portion of the visual cortext from V1 up to the lower level of the pre-frontal cortex (from the paper I have cited so many times on this list) has several million pattern nodes (and, as Josh has pointed out, this is just for the mainly feedforward aspect of visual modeling). This includes nothing for the vast majority of V1 and above, and nothing for audio, language, visual motion, associate cortex, prefrontal cortex, etc. EWP Matt, I am not in any way criticizing you for mentioning 10^9 bits, because I have read similar numbers myself, and your post pointed with very appropriate questioning to the gap between that and what the brain would appear to have the capabilility to represent. This very low number is just another manifestation of the small hardware mindset that has dominated the conventional wisdom in the AI since its beginning. If the only models one could make had to fit in the very small memories of most past machines, it is only natural that one's mind would be biased toward grossly simplified representation. EWP So forget the notion that 10^9 bits can represent human-level world knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the memory required to store the representation in most current best selling video games is 10 to 40 times larger. Ed Porter P.S., Please give me feed back on whehter this technique of distinguishing original from responsive text is better than my use
Re: [agi] Poll
On 10/18/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? ( e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) I don't think the gap is a technical gap really, it's a conceptual gap. An AGI is a fundamentally different sort of beast than a narrow AI. What we need is to have a number of years of concentrated detailed-design and engineering effort by a dedicated, appropriately skilled software/computer-science team, focused on implementing, tuning and teaching an AGI based on a workable high-level design. The Novamente design is a workable high-level design for an AGI. There may be others. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? When we put all the pending Novamente tasks into Microsoft Project about a year ago, it came out to something like 6.5 years of work for a strong team of 10-15 totally focused, appropriately skilled people. By now we have probably shaved a few months off that due to our ongoing work. This is for getting to a young-child-mind, not a baby mind. A baby mind is too hard to validate, IMO. The goal is to get to the level of English communication at the level of a 4 or 5 year old child. [for examples of conversation at this level, see the end of my post at http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/10/13/a-toddler-turing-test/#comment-8509] I think it will not be more than 3-5 years between a and b. Potentially a bunch less than that, depending on how much resources the baby mind attracts. 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? 3 decades, perhaps? -- Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=54913571-cbca1b
Re: [agi] Poll
On 10/18/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) Procedural knowledge. Data in relational databases can be sliced this way and that, text documents can at least be searched in sophisticated ways, proofs in formal logic can be checked and reasoned from etc; but code can only be run as-is, and then only in precisely the environment for which it was written. Procedural knowledge needs to become first class. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? Yes, build and use a system that makes procedural knowledge first class. 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? Human-equivalent AI isn't feasible. Give me a Space Shuttle's worth of funding (a few billion a year sustained for a few decades) and I'll take a shot at it, but in reality the world doesn't want it enough to commit anywhere near those resources to it. Smart CAD, however, might be doable in the next decade or two if things go well. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=54913836-7be5b1
Re: [agi] Poll
1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) The biggest gap is the design of a system that can absorb information generated by other intelligent systems the *same sort of way* humans can. This can include anything from copying body movements, understanding body language (pointing, smiling) and higher maths on a blackboard. I agree this is important, which is one of the benefits I see in virtually embodied AI ... see -- QuickTime movie on http://novamente.net homepage -- new article on kurzweilai.net, http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=3%23710 I am currently writing a paper for AGI-08 on the combination of imitative and reinforcement learning... -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=54975241-ed3ab5
Re: [agi] Poll
On 18/10/2007, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) The biggest gap is the design of a system that can absorb information generated by other intelligent systems the *same sort of way* humans can. This can include anything from copying body movements, understanding body language (pointing, smiling) and higher maths on a blackboard. It will also require some form of ability to control how information is absorbed to prevent malicious changes having too much power.. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? There are some problems that have to be solved first however. If you assume that cultural information and trial and error can change most parts of the system during human like absorption, that presents some problems. You will need to find a system/architecture that is goal-oriented and somewhat stable in its goal orientation under the introduction of arbitrary programs. So if this was created and significant numbers of people were trying to create social robots, then things would speed up. 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? It depends on whether we get a good theory of how cultural information is transmitted, processed and incorporated into a system. Without a good theory there will have to be lots of trial and error, and as some trials will have to be done in a social setting, they will take a long time. I'm also not sure human equivalent is desired (assuming you mean a system with a goal system devoted to its own well-being). 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? Well if it continues as it is, you will continue to get some very powerful narrow AI system (potentially passing the Turing test on cursory examination), but not the flexibility of AGI. 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=8660244id_secret=54962347-356c7d
RE: [agi] Poll
1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? I think hardware is a limitation because it biases our thinking to focus on simplistic models of intelligence. However, even if we had more computational power at our disposal we do not yet know what to do with it, and so the biggest gap is conceptual rather than technical. In particular, I become more and more skeptical that the effort to produce concise theories of things like knowledge representation are likely to succeed. Frames, is-a relations, logical inference on atomic tokens, and so on, are efforts to make intelligent behavior comprehensible in concisely describable ways, but they seem to only be crude approximations to the reality of intelligent behavior, which seem less and less likely to have formulations that are comfortably within our human ability to reason about effectively. As one example, consider the study in cognitive science of the theory of categories -- from the necessary and sufficient conditions classical view to the more modern competing views of prototypes vs exemplars. All of these are nice simple descriptions but as so often happens it seems that the effort to boil down the phenomena to nice simple ideas we can work with in our tiny brains actually boils off most of the important stuff. The challenge is for us to come up with ways to think about or at least work with (and somehow reproduce or invent!) mechanisms that appear not to be reduceable to convenient theories. I expect that our ways of thinking about these things will evolve as the systems we build operate on more and more data. As Novamente's atom table grows from thousands to millions and eventually billions of rows; as cortex simulations become more and more detailed and studyable; as we start to grapple with semantic nets containing many millions of nodes -- our understanding of the dynamics of such systems will increase. Eventually we will become comfortable with and become more able to build systems whose desired behaviors cannot even be specified in a simple or rigorous way. Or, perhaps, theoretical breakthroughs will occur making it possible to describe intelligence and its associated phenomena in simple scientific language. Because neither of these things can be done at present, we can barely even talk to each other about things like goals, semantics, grounding, intelligence, and so forth... the process of taking these unknown and perhaps inherently complex things and compressing them into simple language symbols throws out too much information to even effectively communicate what little we do understand. Either way, it will take decades if we're lucky. Moving from mouse-level hardware to monkey-level hardware in the next couple decades will be helpful, just like our views on machine intelligence have expanded beyond those of our forebears looking at the first digital computers and wondering about how they might be made to think. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55002867-d97b38
Re: [agi] Poll
Please find below commentaries of a naive neat which do not quite agree with the approaches of the seasoned users on this list. Comments and pointers are most welcome. On 10/18/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) I believe there are primarily two fundamental problems for the optimal decision making approach to AGI and largely for AI in general. Albeit purely a guess, contemporary machinery should suffice for proper solutions. (1a) Metareasoning problems and the exploration-exploitation dilemma, which seems to be specializations and/or formulations of the same problems. (1b) A formal approach to ill-defined problems. Most notable assumptions of inductive bias and subsequently empirical generalization. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? Old-fashioned foundational research deals with (1a). (1a) consists of modern problems which neither has or is recieving a great deal of attention. My hypothesis is that it is primarily due to its difficulty, which research in adjacent fields might cover in an ever so inert but imminent manner. 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? The ultimate goal is not human-level intelligence but optimal decision making. Obviously a human or superhuman intelligence, as with a near-optimal decision maker, could render our work useless as it approaches the questions itself. Wildly guessing, I imagine the level of intelligence or rational decision maker of a toddler would take three to a twenty years of active research, a mature human four to a hundred, and an optimal six to infinity. During these years, invaluable and innumerable contributions should have been made to computer science in general and associated fields. 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? I would triple the numbers. Thanks, Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Cenny Wenner - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55007886-023787
RE: [agi] Poll
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) I just see the difference as a LOT more lines of code. AGI for software implementation is a lot of code. AI is smaller chunks here and there. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? More development time and resources. Some AGI designs may work and others, say 2nd generation AGI designs (can I call them that?) like Novamente may be real close to working with their actual mirrored implementation in software. Other AGI designs may need significant testing and adjusting when development is performed. 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? Human AGI is difficult to estimate. Many highly profitable pre-AGI or non-human AGI systems may be more of a justifiable business expense. 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? It is difficult to see more than a few years down the road as there are too many variables. The economy and marketplace usually works things out in its own way. I think universities should throw more resources at the problem perhaps in coordination with corporations. John - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55012017-569838
Re: [agi] Poll
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? (e.g. we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the ideas, just need hardware, etc) The gap is a matter of (a) methodology and (b) tools. To close the gap we need to understand that AGI systems can only be built if we use a methodology that takes account of the complexity likely to exist in intelligent systems, and that this implies a need to stay as close as possible to emulating the high-level (not neural) design of the human mind. The tools needed are specifically those that would support the methodology. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? A large scale project to implement the prescription given in (1). 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? Impossible to put numbers on this without further work. At the pure guess level, however, I would say it *could* happen in as little as (a) 5 years and (b) 8 years. 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? It would probably not happen at all. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55030922-d66c87
Re: [agi] Poll
On 10/18/07, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because neither of these things can be done at present, we can barely even talk to each other about things like goals, semantics, grounding, intelligence, and so forth... the process of taking these unknown and perhaps inherently complex things and compressing them into simple language symbols throws out too much information to even effectively communicate what little we do understand. Are you suggesting that a narrow AI designed to improve communication between researchers would be a worthwhile investment? Imagine it as the scaffolding required to support the building efforts. Natural language is enough of a problem in its own right that we have difficulty talking to each other, to say nothing of building algorithms that can do it even as poorly as we do. At least if there were a way to exchange the context along with an idea, there might be less confusion between sender and receiver. The danger of contextually rich posts (the kind Richard Loosemore often authors) is that there is too much information to consume. That's where I think narrow Assistive Intelligence could add the sender's assumed context to a neutral exchange format that the receiver's agent could properly display in an unencumbered way. The only way I see for that to happen is that the agents are trained on/around the unique core conceptual mode of each researcher. (I know... that's brainstorming with no idea how to begin any implementation) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55034905-bea938
Re: [agi] Poll
That's where I think narrow Assistive Intelligence could add the sender's assumed context to a neutral exchange format that the receiver's agent could properly display in an unencumbered way. The only way I see for that to happen is that the agents are trained on/around the unique core conceptual mode of each researcher. Seems like an AGI-hard problem to me... ben g - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55035622-2ebb10
RE: [agi] Poll
Matt Mahoneys Thu 10/18/2007 9:15 PM post states MAHONEY There is possibly a 6 order of magnitude gap between the size of a cognitive model of human memory (10^9 bits) and the number of synapses in the brain (10^15), and precious little research to resolve this discrepancy. In fact, these numbers are so poorly known that we aren't even sure there is a gap. EWP This gap, which Matt was so correct to highlight, is an important one, and points out one of the many crippling legacy of the small hardware mindset. EWP I have always been a big believer in memory based reasoning, and for the last 37 years I have always assumed a human level representation of world knowledge would require something like 10^12 to 10^14 bytes, which is 10^13 to 10^15 bits. (i.e., within several orders of magnitude of the human brain, a phrase I have used so many times before on this list.) My recollection is that after reading Minskys reading list in 1970 and my taking of K-line theory to heart, the number I guessed at that time for world knowledge was either 10^15 bits or bytes, I forget which. But, of course, my notions then were so primitive compared to what they are today. EWP Should we allow ourselves to think in terms of such big numbers? Yes. Lets take 10^13 bytes, for example. EWP 10^13 bytes with 2/3s of it in non-volatile memory and 10 million simple RAM opp processors, capable of performing about 20 trillion random RAM accesses/sec, and a network with a cross-sectional bandwidth of roughly 45 TBytes/sec (if you ran it hot), should be manufacturable at a marginal cost in 7 years of about $40,000, and could be profitably sold with amortization of development costs for several hundred thousand dollars if there were a market for several thousand of them -- which there almost certainly would be because of their extreme power. EWP Why so much more than the 10^9 bits mentioned above? EWP Because 10^9 bits only stores roughly 1 million atoms (nodes or links) with proper indexing and various state values. Anybody who thinks that is enough to represent human-level world knowledge in all its visual, audio, linguistic, tactile, kinesthetic, emotional, behavioral, and social complexity hasnt thought about it in sufficient depth. EWP For example, my foggy recollection is that Serres representation of the hierarchical memory associated the portion of the visual cortext from V1 up to the lower level of the pre-frontal cortex (from the paper I have cited so many times on this list) has several million pattern nodes (and, as Josh has pointed out, this is just for the mainly feedforward aspect of visual modeling). This includes nothing for the vast majority of V1 and above, and nothing for audio, language, visual motion, associate cortex, prefrontal cortex, etc. EWP Matt, I am not in any way criticizing you for mentioning 10^9 bits, because I have read similar numbers myself, and your post pointed with very appropriate questioning to the gap between that and what the brain would appear to have the capabilility to represent. This very low number is just another manifestation of the small hardware mindset that has dominated the conventional wisdom in the AI since its beginning. If the only models one could make had to fit in the very small memories of most past machines, it is only natural that ones mind would be biased toward grossly simplified representation. EWP So forget the notion that 10^9 bits can represent human-level world knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the memory required to store the representation in most current best selling video games is 10 to 40 times larger. Ed Porter P.S., Please give me feed back on whehter this technique of distinguishing original from responsive text is better than my use of all-caps, which received criticism. -Original Message- From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:15 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Poll --- J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? In hindsight we can say that we did not have enough hardware. However there has been no point in time since the 1950's when we knew that at the time. We are in that position today. There is possibly a 6 order of magnitude gap between the size of a cognitive model of human memory (10^9 bits) and the number of synapses in the brain (10^15), and precious little research to resolve this discrepancy. In fact, these numbers are so poorly known that we aren't even sure there is a gap. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? Resolving the cost estimate would only let us avoid expensive mistakes like Blocks World or Cyc or 5th Generation or the 1959 Russian-English translation project, all of which began with great
Re: [agi] Poll
--- J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be interested in everyone's take on the following: 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI? In hindsight we can say that we did not have enough hardware. However there has been no point in time since the 1950's when we knew that at the time. We are in that position today. There is possibly a 6 order of magnitude gap between the size of a cognitive model of human memory (10^9 bits) and the number of synapses in the brain (10^15), and precious little research to resolve this discrepancy. In fact, these numbers are so poorly known that we aren't even sure there is a gap. 2. Do you have an idea as to what should should be done about (1) that would significantly accelerate progress if it were generally adopted? Resolving the cost estimate would only let us avoid expensive mistakes like Blocks World or Cyc or 5th Generation or the 1959 Russian-English translation project, all of which began with great enthusiasm and no idea of the difficulty involved. What mistakes are we making now? 3. If (2), how long would it take the field to attain (a) a baby mind, (b) a mature human-equivalent AI, if your idea(s) were adopted and AGI seriously pursued? The question is meaningless. IQ is not a point on a line. On some scales, computers surpassed humans in the 1940's. The goal of AGI is not to build human minds, but to do our work. 4. How long to (a) and (b) if AI research continues more or less as it is doing now? It would make not a bit of difference. There is already a US $66 trillion/year incentive to develop AGI (the value of all human labor). Nobody on this list has the One Big Breakthrough. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=55201946-df9581
RE: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
9. a particular AGI theoryThat is, one that convinces me it's on the right track. Now that you have run this poll, what did you learn from the responses and how are you using this information in your effort? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Hey but it makes for an excellent quote. Facts don't have to be true if they're beautiful or funny! ;-) Sorry Eliezer, but the more famous you become, the more these types of apocryphal facts will surface... most not even vaguely true... You should be proud and happy! To quote Mr Bean 'Well, I enjoyed it anyway.' Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/07 4:38 AM Mark Waser wrote: P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-) This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even as a joke, because I understand the logic of the multiplayer iterated prisoner's dilemma - as soon as anyone defects, everyone gets hurt. Some people who did not understand the IPD, and hence could not conceive of my understanding the IPD, made jokes about that because they could not conceive of behaving otherwise in my place. But I never, ever said that, even as a joke, and was saddened but not surprised to hear it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Hm. Memory may be tricking me. I did a deeper scan of my mind, and found that the only memory I actually have is that someone at the conference said that they saw I wasn't in the room that morning, and then looked around to see if there was a bomb. I have no memory of the fire thing one way or the other, but it sounds like a plausible distortion of the first event after a few repetitions. Or maybe the intended meaning is that, if I saw a fire in a room, I would leave the room first to make sure of my own safety, and then shout Fire! to warn everyone else? If so, I still don't remember saying that, but it doesn't have the same quality of being the first to defect in an iterated prisoner's dilemma - which is the main thing I feel I need to emphasize heavily that I will not do; no, not even as a joke, because talking about defection encourages people to defect, and I won't be the first to talk about it, either. So I guess the moral is that I shouldn't toss around the word absolutely - even when the point needs some heavy moral emphasis - about events so far in the past. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even as a joke Your recollection is *very* different from mine. My recollection is that you certainly did say it as a joke but that I was *rather* surprised that you would say such a thing even as a joke. If anyone else would like to chime in (since several member's of this list were in attendance) it might be interesting . . . . (or we could go back to the video since it was part of a panel that was videotaped -- if it isn't in the video, I am certainly willing to apologize but I'd be *very* puzzled since I've never had such a vivid recollection be shown to be incorrect before). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
# 7 8 9 Money is good, but the overall AGI theory and program plan is the most important aspect. James Ratcliff YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can people rate the following things? 1. quick $$, ie salary 2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp 3. freedom to do what they want 4. fairness 5. friendly friends 6. the project looks like a winner overall 7. knowing that the project is charitable 8. special AGI features they look for (eg a special type of friendliness, pls specify) 9. a particular AGI theory 10. average level of expertise in the group 11. others? Thanks in advance, it'd be hugely helpful... =) YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
I did a deeper scan of my mind, and found that the only memory I actually have is that someone at the conference said that they saw I wasn't in the room that morning, and then looked around to see if there was a bomb. My memory probably was incorrect in terms of substituting fire for bomb (since the effect is much the same). Or maybe the intended meaning is that, if I saw a fire in a room, I would leave the room first to make sure of my own safety, and then shout Fire! to warn everyone else? I believe that that was indeed the context (with the probability that it was bomb instead of fire). about events so far in the past. It wasn't that long ago!:-) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Synergy or win-win between my work and the project i.e. if the project dovetails with what I am doing (or has a better approach). This would require some overlap between the project's architecture and mine. This would also require a clear vision and explicit 'clues' about deliverables/modules (i.e. both code and ideas). I would have to be able to use these (code, idea) *completely* freely as I would deem fit, and would, in return, happily exchange the portions of my work that are relevant to the project. Basically I agree with what the others wrote below - especially Ben. Except I would not work for a company that would aim to retain (exclusive or long-term) commercial rights to AGI design (and thus become rulers of the world :) nor would I accept funding from any source that aims to adopt AGI research outcomes for military purposes. Oh and yes, I'd like to be wealthy (definitely *not* rich and most definitely not famous - see the recent singularity discussion for a rationale on that one) but I already have the things I really need (not having to work for a regular income *would* be nice, tho) = Jean-Paul Justin Corwin wrote: If I had to find a new position tomorrow, I would try to find (or found) a group which I liked what they were 'doing', rather than their opinions, organization, or plans. Mark Waser wrote: important -- 6 which would necessarily include 8 and 9 Matt wrote: 12. A well defined project goal, including test criteria. Ben wrote: The most important thing by far is having an AGI design that seems feasible. For me, wanting to make a thinking machine is a far stronger motivator than wanting to get rich. The main use of being rich is if it helps to more effectively launch a positive Singularity, from my view... Eliezer wrote: Clues. Plural. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
provided that I thought they weren't just going to take my code and apply some licence which meant I could no longer use it in the future.. I suspect that I wasn't clear about this . . . . You can always take what is truly your code and do anything you want with it . . . . The problems start when you take the modifications to your code that were made by others or where you take what you call your code which is actually a very minimal change to someone else's massive effort. No one is happy when someone else takes their work, makes a minor tweak, and then outcompetes them. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
but I'm not very convinced that the singularity *will* automatically happen.
{IMHO I think the nature of intelligence implies it is not amenable to
simple linear scaling - likely not even log-linear
I share that guess/semi-informed opinion; however, while that means that I
am less afraid of hard-takeoff horribleness, it inflates my fear of someone
taking a Friendly AI and successfully dismantling and misusing the pieces (if
not reconstructing a non-Friendly AGI in their own image) -- and then maybe
winning in a hardware and numbers race.
Mark
P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he
would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-)
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
RE: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Mark waser writes: P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-) You people making public progress toward AGI are very brave indeed! I wonder if a time will come when the personal security of AGI researchers or conferences will be a real concern. Stopping AGI could be a high priority for existential-risk wingnuts. On a slightly related note, I notice that many (most?) AGI approaches do not include facilities for recursive self-improvement in the sense of giving the AGI access to its base source code and algorithms. I wonder if that approach is inherently safer, as the path to explosive self-improvement becomes much more difficult and unlikely to happen without being noticed. Personally I think that there is little danger that a properly-programmed GameBoy is going to suddenly recursively self-improve itself into a singularity-causing AGI, and the odds of any computer in the next 10 years at least being able to do so are only slightly higher. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
On 04/06/07, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if a time will come when the personal security of AGI researchers or conferences will be a real concern. Stopping AGI could be a high priority for existential-risk wingnuts. I think this is the view put forward by Hugo De Garis. I used to regard his views as little more than an amusing sci-fi plot, but more recently I am slowly coming around to the view that there could emerge a rift between those who want to build human-rivaling intelligences and those who don't, probably at first amongst academics then later in the rest of society. I think it's quite possible that todays existential riskers may turn into tomorrows neo-luddite movement. I also think that some of those promoting AI today may switch sides as they see the prospect of a singularity becoming more imminent. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this is the view put forward by Hugo De Garis. I used to regard his views as little more than an amusing sci-fi plot, but more recently I am slowly coming around to the view that there could emerge a rift between those who want to build human-rivaling intelligences and those who don't, probably at first amongst academics then later in the rest of society. I think it's quite possible that todays existential riskers may turn into tomorrows neo-luddite movement. I also think that some of those promoting AI today may switch sides as they see the prospect of a singularity becoming more imminent. On the subject of neo-luddite terrorists, the Unabomber's Manifesto makes for fascinating but chilling reading: http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm David - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Mark Waser wrote: P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-) This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even as a joke, because I understand the logic of the multiplayer iterated prisoner's dilemma - as soon as anyone defects, everyone gets hurt. Some people who did not understand the IPD, and hence could not conceive of my understanding the IPD, made jokes about that because they could not conceive of behaving otherwise in my place. But I never, ever said that, even as a joke, and was saddened but not surprised to hear it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Clues. Plural. -- 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] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
The most important thing by far is having an AGI design that seems feasible. Only after that (very difficult) requirement is met, do any of the others matter. -- Ben G On 6/3/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can people rate the following things? 1. quick $$, ie salary 2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp 3. freedom to do what they want 4. fairness 5. friendly friends 6. the project looks like a winner overall 7. knowing that the project is charitable 8. special AGI features they look for (eg a special type of friendliness, pls specify) 9. a particular AGI theory 10. average level of expertise in the group 11. others? Thanks in advance, it'd be hugely helpful... =) YKY -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
important -- 6 which would necessarily include 8 and 9 potentially important -- 10 (average level is a poor gauge, if there are sufficient highly-expert/superstar people you can afford an equal number of relatively non-expert people, if you don't have any real superstars, you're dead in the water) unimportant -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 - Original Message - From: YKY (Yan King Yin) To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:04 PM Subject: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group? Can people rate the following things? 1. quick $$, ie salary 2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp 3. freedom to do what they want 4. fairness 5. friendly friends 6. the project looks like a winner overall 7. knowing that the project is charitable 8. special AGI features they look for (eg a special type of friendliness, pls specify) 9. a particular AGI theory 10. average level of expertise in the group 11. others? Thanks in advance, it'd be hugely helpful... =) YKY -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
My reasons for joining a2i2 could only be expressed as subportions of 6 and 8 (possibly 9 and 4). I joined largely on the strength of my impression of Peter. My interest in employment was to work as closely as possible on general artificial intelligence, and he wanted me to work for him on precisely that. His opinions on the subject were extremely pragmatic, and focused on what worked. I appreciated that, thinking that so long as I could support my opinions, they would be respected. In retrospect, I doubt I would have joined if I had tried to evaluate a2i2 theoretically from my own design/organizational perspective. Peter and I still do not have identical ideas about AGI(or the business of developing AGI), but I agree about all the specific issues we've dealt with thus far, and I have come to think that the process and resources an organization can bring to bear on it's problems are much more important than the precise design, opinions, or data they have at any given time. If I had to find a new position tomorrow, I would try to find (or found) a group which I liked what they were 'doing', rather than their opinions, organization, or plans. That said, I wouldn't have joined if I hadn't been offered stock or equivalent ownership of the work. Not because of the implied later capital gains, but because I wouldn't want my work effectively contributing to an organization in which I had no formal say or control. I expect Peter will remain the overwhelming majority owner of a2i2 for the foreseeable future, but the responsibility is important to me. -- Justin Corwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can people rate the following things? 1. quick $$, ie salary 2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp 3. freedom to do what they want 4. fairness 5. friendly friends 6. the project looks like a winner overall 7. knowing that the project is charitable 8. special AGI features they look for (eg a special type of friendliness, pls specify) 9. a particular AGI theory 10. average level of expertise in the group 11. others? 12. A well defined project goal, including test criteria. About 1.5 years ago we discussed optical character recognition, which is not AGI but has some potential short term income, requires solving some prerequisite problems in vision and language modeling, and is feasible on a small budget. However, it went nowhere. YKY, do you want to build AGI or make money? If you try to do both you will get neither. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
