Hi List,
Also interesting to some of you may be VideoLectures.net, which offers
lots of interesting lectures. Although not all are of Stanford
quality, still I found many interesting lectures by respected
lecturers. And there are LOTS (625 at the moment) of lectures about
Machine Learning... :)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the
'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of
AGI safety and/or the prevention of abuse may indeed be necessary one
day.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
You are right, that does sound better than quick-and-dirty. And more
relevant, because my primary interest here is to get a handle on what
normative epistemology should tell us to conclude if we do not have
time to
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original works produced by software as a tool where a human operator is
involved at some stage is a different case from original works produced by
software exclusively and entirely under its own direction. The latter has no
2008/9/18 Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And this is the problem. Although some people have the goal of making
an artificial person with all the richness and nuance of a sentient
creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada yada.. some of us
are just interested in making more
2008/9/17 JDLaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
IMHO to all,
There is an important morality discussion about how sentient life will
be treated that has not received its proper treatment in your
discussion groups. I have seen glimpses of this topic, but no real
action proposals. How would you feel if
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And this is the problem. Although some people have
the goal of making
an artificial person with all the richness and nuance
of a sentient
creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada
yada.. some of us
are just interested
2008/9/18 David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the
'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of
AGI safety and/or the prevention of
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to
automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and
interesting goal:
The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans
Ben,
IMHO...
On 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to
automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and
TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
AUTHOR: Pei Wang
ABSTRACT: Case-by-case Problem Solving is an approach in which the
system solves the current occurrence of a problem instance by taking
the available knowledge into consideration, under the restriction of
available resources. It is
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to
automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and
interesting goal:
Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple
programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things
that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on
intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs.
Steve,
In
When an AGI writes a book, designs a new manufacturing base, forms a
decentralised form of regulation, ect, the copyright and patent system will
be futile, because the enclosed material, when deemed useful by another,
will access the same information and rewrite it in another form to create a
On Wednesday 17 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
I think a similar case could be made for a lot of large open source
projects such as Linux itself. However, in this case and others, the
software itself is the result of a high-level super goal defined by
one or more humans. Even if no
I would go further. Humans have demonstrated that they cannot be
trusted in the long term even with the capabilities that we already
possess. We are too likely to have ego-centric rulers who make
decisions not only for their own short-term benefit, but with an
explicit After me the deluge
TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
AUTHOR: Pei Wang
ABSTRACT: Case-by-case Problem Solving is an approach in which the
system solves the current occurrence of a problem instance by taking
the available knowledge into consideration, under the restriction of
available resources. It is
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate
the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Umm,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Exactly. If opencog were ever to reach the point of
popularity where one might consider a change of
licensing, it would also be the case that most of the
interested parties would *not* be under SIAI control,
and thus
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claiming a copyright and successfully defending that claim are different
things.
What ways do you envision someone challenging the copyright?
Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the
On Thursday 18 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps
Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could
be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar
problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert,
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And to boot, both of you don't really know what you want.
What we want has been programmed into our brains by the process of evolution. I
am not pretending the outcome will be good. Once we have the technology to have
everything we
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the books
as an asset at ACME Marketing LLC and who's programming has been tailered by
ACME to suit their needs. Unbeknownst to ACME, RM has decided to write
Matt M wrote:
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important
and interesting goal:
The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent
toward humans
That's what I mean by an automated economy. Google is already more
intelligent than any human
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI.
The first is to automate the economy. The second is to
become immortal through uploading.
Umm, who's
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
general intelligence at the human level
I hear you say these words a lot. I think, by using the word level,
you're trying to say something different to general intelligence just
like humans have but I'm not sure everyone
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of?
Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think?
Trent
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
AUTHOR: Pei Wang
But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive
literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and
even
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.CaseByCase.pdf
I think it would be interesting if you had some experimental results. Could CPS
now solve a problem like sort [3 2 4 1] in its current state? If not, how
much knowledge does it
Ben,
I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked,
ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or
crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in
psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in
A key point IMO is that: problem-solving that is non-algorithmic (in Pei's
sense) at one level (the level of the particular problem being solved) may
still be algorithmic at a different level (for instance, NARS itself is a
set of algorithms).
So, to me, calling NARS problem-solving
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that
no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like
Google
Ben,
Ah well, then I'm confused. And you may be right - I would just like
clarification.
You see, what you have just said is consistent with my understanding of Pei up
till now. He explicitly called his approach in the past nonalgorithmic while
acknowledging that others wouldn't consider it
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your language is unclear
Could you define precisely what you mean by an algorithm
Also, could you give an example of a computer program, that can be run on a
digital computer, that is not does not embody an algorithm
Your language is unclear
Could you define precisely what you mean by an algorithm
Also, could you give an example of a computer program, that can be run on a
digital computer, that is not does not embody an algorithm according to
your definition?
thx
ben
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Mike
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Kingma, D.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small question... aren't Bbayesian network nodes just _conditionally_
independent: so that set A is only independent from set B when
d-separated by some set Z? So please clarify, if possible, what kind
of independence you
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there are some applications I haven't
thought of?
Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think?
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall
Ben,
It's hard to resist my interpretation here - that Pei does sound as if he is
being truly non-algorithmic. Just look at the opening abstract sentences.
(However, I have no wish to be pedantic - I'll accept whatever you guys say you
mean).
Case-by-case Problem Solving is an approach in
Actually, CPS doesn't mean solving problems without algorithms. CPS is itself
an algorithm, as described on pages 7-8 of Pei's paper. However, as I
mentioned, I would be more convinced if there were some experimental results
showing that it actually worked.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal
How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface
Everyone should have one
The market would be virtually unlimited ...
John L
www.ethicalvalues.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the
categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain?
Perhaps you could list some uses of a computer that don't fall into
the category of (1)
Ben,
Well then so is S Kauffman's language unclear. I'll go with his definition in
Chap 12 Reinventing the Sacred [all about algorithms and their impossibility
for solving a whole string of human problems]
What is an algorithm? The quick definition is an *effective procedure to
calculate a
Matt,
Thanks for reference. But it's still somewhat ambiguous. I could somewhat
similarly outline a non-procedure procedure which might include steps like
Think about the problem then Do something, anything - whatever first comes
to mind and If that doesn't work, try something else.
But as
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be
built.
I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that
a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have completely left out the human element or
friendly-type appeal
How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface
Everyone should have one
The market would be virtually unlimited ...
That falls under the category
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the
categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain?
3) learning as much as possible
4) proving as many theorems as possible
5) figuring out how to improve human life as much as possible
Of course, if you
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI
that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or
(2) augmenting your brain?
Perhaps you could
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re:
Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have
Mike,
On 9/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that
simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do
things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on
intelligence, e.g.
49 matches
Mail list logo
