On 20/04/2008, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson writes:
Consider an AI learning chess, it is told in plain english that...
I think the points you are striving for (assuming I understand what you
mean) are very important and interesting. Even the first simplest steps
Benjamin Johnston wrote:
First, I think there is a world of difference between passionate
researchers at the beginning of the field, in 1956, and passionate
researchers in 2008 who have a half-century of other people's mistakes
to learn from. The secret of success is to try and fail, then
Ben Goertzel writes:
it might be valuable to have an integration of Player/Stage/Gazebo with
OpenSim
I think this type of project is a good start toward addressing one of the major
critiques of the virtual world approach -- the temptation to (unintentionally)
cheat -- those canned
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider also the sentence, There are words such as verbs, that are
doing words, you need to put a pronoun or noun before the verb.
People are given this sort of
Children learn to form grammatically correct sentences without
ever knowing the difference between a noun and a verb. Robert Hecht-Nielsen
confabulation does the same.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:44 AM
To:
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing I'm
trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: There's a piece called a 'knight'. It
moves by going two squares in one direction and then one in a perpendicular
direction. And here's something neat:
Matt said:
General intelligences are going to have to compete with organizations of
specialized systems, each of which is optimized for a narrow task.
Interesting observation. I envision Texai as a multitude of specialized agents
arranged in hierarchical control system, and acting in
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing
I'm trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: There's a piece called a 'knight'.
It moves by going two squares in one direction
Stephen Reed writes:
Hey Texai, let's program
[Texai] I don't know how to program, can you teach me by yourself?
Sure, first thing is that a program consists of statements that each does
something
[Texai] I assume by program you mean a sequence of instructions that a
computer can interpret and
Hi Derek,
Thanks for encouragement. Take a look at WordNet online here and you will see
why an initial Texai goal is to fully understand the word sense definitions
(e.g. program).
It's been so long that I cannot recall the year, or even the season, but I do
recall to this day exactly where I
Re Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon 4/21/2008 11:50 AM and12:33 PM
Zahn===
In the scenario where somebody verbally explains chess there are no prior
sensory experiences with knights to draw from...
Porter===
By the time anybody is in a position to understand anything about
--- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adult can do tricks not accessible to a child, increasing efficiency
of language learning, and this process can make use of completely
different information. Explicit learning of difference between
categories is faster than unsupervised learning of
Vladimir Nesov writes: Generating concepts out of thin air is no big deal,
if only a resource-hungry process. You can create a dozen for each episode,
for example.
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a
(Aplogies for inadvertent empty reply to this :-)
On Saturday 19 April 2008 11:35:43 am, Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
In a single word: feedback.
At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter)
schemes I've seen can be caricatured
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a dozen get
generated instead... now I have twelve times as many things to explain. If
you
On Saturday 19 April 2008 11:35:43 am, Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
With the work done by Goertzel et al, Pei, Joscha Bach
http://www.micropsi.org/ , Sam Adams, and others who spoke at AGI 2008, I
feel we pretty much conceptually understand how build
Bob, et al,
On 4/20/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until a true AGI is developed I think it will remain necessary to pay
programmers to write programs, at least some of the time. You can't
always rely upon voluntary effort, especially when the problem you
want to solve is fairly
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter)
schemes I've seen can be caricatured as follows:
1. Receive data from sensors.
2. Interpret into higher-level concepts.
3. Then a
On 21/04/2008, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, this constitutes a reductio ad absurdum situation establishing
that the underlying assumption, that someone is going to build AGI, is very
probably wrong.
Whoever comes up with a working AGI may be the last person you expect
Matt said:
People do not learn grammar by being given grammatical rules, because we still
don't know what they are. Grammar rules seem to have a Zipf distribution,
like vocabulary. About 200 words account for half of the tokens in text, and
then it gets complicated. Likewise, a small number of
On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Like English speakers learning Hindu cannot learn to speak the 3
different
versions of the 'k' sound because they sound the same.
In my experience it is not so much that they sound the same but that
we don't know how to say them (in terms
Zahn===
If you are suggesting that concept formation is a (perhaps stochastic)
generate-and-test procedure, that seems like an okay idea but the issues are
then redescribed as: what is the generation procedure, what causes it to be
invoked, what the test procedure is, and so on.
These
Josh said:
[what's missing] In a single word: feedback.
At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter)
schemes I've seen can be caricatured as follows:
1. Receive data from sensors.
2. Interpret into higher-level concepts.
3. Then a miracle occurs.
4. Interpret
Josh,
I don't think your 5 steps do justice to the more sophisticated views of AGI
that are out their. It does not describe how I presume a Novamente system
would work. In the system I have envisioned all links in the hierarchical
memory work in both directions and support top-down, and
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when people are given a sentence such as the one you quoted about verbs,
pronouns, and nouns, presuming they have some knowledge of most of the words
in the sentence, they will understand the concept that verbs are doing
words. This is
Bob,
I, perhaps naively, agree with your list of required resources - which I'm glad
to have.
But I believe that AGI will not be developed in isolation. Its not only that
AGI is a hard, unsolved problem, its that working alone in isolation, there is
such a great probability that the
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
There is no evidence you are more justified in laughing at my position than
I am in saying your complexity issues do not appear to represent a major
unsolved conceptual issues.
Remember I am not denying complexity issues don't exist. Instead I am
saying it is not
On 21/04/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Problem is, in brains, there are actually more nerve fibers transmitting data
from higher numbers to lower, i.e. backwards, than forwards. I think that the
interpretation of sensory input is a much more active process than we AGIers
Richard Loosemore: I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the
general complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved.
I laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confident are you that this
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek,
I'll not paraphrase
On Monday 21 April 2008 05:33:01 pm, Ed Porter wrote:
I don't think your 5 steps do justice to the more sophisticated views of AGI
that are out their.
It was, as I said, a caricature. However, look, e.g., at the overview graphic
of this LIDA paper (page 8)
William,
Re the Epimenides paradox, Eliezer Yudkowsky had some interesting comments
in Levels of Organization in General Intelligence, Section 2.7.1 From
Thoughts to deliberation. Which I quote below
-In the universe of bad TV shows, speaking the Epimenides Paradox1 This
sentence is false to
Richard,
I read you Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Theoretical
Psychology article, and I still don't know what your are talking about
other than the game of life. I know you make a distinction between Richard
and non-Richard complexity. I understand computational irreducibility.
Vlad,
It is my belief that humans can do intuitive cost/benefit analysis without
deliberation, although many forms of cost/benefit analysis do require
deliberation.
For example a basketball player often looks around him in a one or two
seconds makes a decision who to throw to, whether to
Josh,
I talked with Sam Adams at AGI 2008, and as always Sam was saying some
interesting stuff including that his Joshua blue approach was very involved
with feedback loops. He said it is traditional to try to avoid too many
simultaneous feedback loops because people always think having multiple
Josh writes: You see, I happen to think that there *is* a consistent, general,
overall theory of the function of feedback throughout the architecture. And I
think that once it's understood and widely applied, a lot of the
architectures (repeat: a *lot* of the architectures) we have floating
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard Loosemore:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your
I'm going to be very busy for the next few day, or even longer, so I wall be
slow responding to further comments on this thread until things cool down.
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confident
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
I read you Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Theoretical
Psychology article, and I still don't know what your are talking about
other than the game of life. I know you make a distinction between Richard
and non-Richard complexity. I understand
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek,
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Monday 21 April 2008 05:33:01 pm, Ed Porter wrote:
I don't think your 5 steps do justice to the more sophisticated views of AGI
that are out their.
It was, as I said, a caricature. However, look, e.g., at the overview graphic
of this LIDA paper (page 8)
Richard Loosemore:
I'll try to tidy this up and put it on the blog tomorrow.
I'd like to pursue the discussion and will do so in that venue after your post.
I do think it is a very interesting issue. Truthfully I'm more interested in
your specific program for how to succeed than this
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between
theoretical models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at
least 1980, and one thing I have noticed is that people devise
theoretical structures that are based on the
45 matches
Mail list logo
