On 10 Feb 05 Steve Reed said:
In 2014, according to trend, the semiconductor manufacturers may reach
the 16 nanometer lithography node, with 32 CPU cores per chip, perhaps
150+ times more capable than today's x86 chip.
I raised this issue with a colleague who said that he wondered whether
Hi Brad
This is not at all true. I could design a neural network, or perhaps even
symbolic computer program that can evaluate the attractivenes of a peacock
tail and tune it to behave in a similar fashion as that tiny portion of a
real peacock's brain. Does this crude simulation contain
Brad/Eugen/Ben,
Early living things/current simple-minded living things, we can conjecture
didn't/don't have perceptions that can be described as qualia. Then
somewhere along the line humans start describing perceptions that some of
them describe as qualia. It seems that something has
Ben said:
My experience is that in building any narrow-AI app based on Novamente
components, around 80% of the work goes into the application and the
domain-engineering and 20% into stuff of general value for Novamente
Abdrew said:
I would say that general high-quality financial market
Hi Ben,
how the subjective experience of qualia is connected to the neural
correlates of qualia. but the tricky question is how a physical
system (the brain) can generate subjective, phenomenal experiences.
Oh dearhaving jumped in I feel like I'm in over my head already! :)
Hi Ben,
I just read Chalmers article and yours.
You concluded your article with:
In artificial intelligence terms, the present theory suggests that if
an AI program is constructed so that its dynamics give rise to a
constant stream of patterns that are novel and significant (measured
Hi,
I just been thinking about qualia a bit more recently.
(I have to make a disclaimer. I know next to nothing about them, but other
people's ideas from this list have been fermenting in my mind for a while.)
Anyway, here goes..
How about the idea that qualia are properties
Hi Ben,
If you model a system in approximate detail then potentially you can
avoid big surprises and have only small surprises.
In chaotic systems, my guess is that compact models would capture many
possibilities that would otherwise be surprises - especially in the near term.
But I
Hi Ben,
On 23 Dec you said:
I would say that if the universe remains configured roughly as it is now,
then your statement (that long-term persistence requires goal-directed
effort) is true.
However, the universe could in the future find itself in a configuration
in which your statement was
Hi Ben,
One thing I agree with Eliezer Yudkowsky on is: Worrying about how to
increase the odds of AGI, nanotech and biotech saving rather than
annihilating the human race, is much more worthwhile than worrying
about who is President of the US.
It's the nature of evolution that getting to
Maybe a good way for AGIs to learn friendliness and morality, while still
in the sand box, is to:
- be able to form friendships - affiliations with 'others' that go
beyond self-interest - vitual 'others' in the sand box
- to have responsibility for caring for virtual 'pets'
I guess
Evolving Logic has developed and is continuing to work on tools for
handling complex adaptive systems where no model less complex than
the system itself can accurately predict in detail how the system will
behave at future times
http://www.evolvinglogic.com/Learn/pdf/ToolsTechniques.pdf
Tools
People involved in FAI / AGI development might like to have look at
PlaNetwork. This might be a useful network for plugging in FAIs / AGIs
in development.
Cheers, Philip
http://www.planetwork.net/
From their homepage:
Planetwork illuminates the critical role that the conscious use of
The work by European Telecoms might be of interest:
http://more.btexact.com/projects/ibsr/technologythemes/softwareagents.htm
The text below was taken from this webpage:
Software Agents
To support the future enterprise, we deploy intelligent technology based
on a decentralised philosophy in
Bill,
I'd definitely see creating the first open source AGI system as a big
opportunity.
Do you see any overwhelming risks in making AGI technology available
to everyone including malcontents and criminals? Would the rest of
society be able to handle these risks if they also had access to
Shane,
In your first posting on the open AGI subject you mentioned that you
were concerned about the risk on the one hand of:
* inordinate power being concentrated in the hands of the controllers
of the first advanced AGI
* power to do serious harm being made widely available if AGI
The Millenium Project of the United Nations University has produced
the 2003 State of the Future report.
The second para of the executive summary says:
Dramatic increases in collective human-machine intelligence are
possible within 25 years. It is also possible that within the next 25 years
Hi Ben,
Yes, of course a brief ethical slogan like choice, growth and joy is
underspecified and all the terms need to be better defined, either by
example or by formal elucidation, etc. I carry out some of this
elucidation in the Encouraging a Positive Transcension essay that
triggered
Hi Ben,
Question: Will AGI's experience emotions like humans do?
Answer:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/Emotions.htm
I'm wondering whether *social* organisms are likely to have a more
active emotional life because inner psychological states need to be
flagged physiologically to other
Hi Ben,
Why would an AGI be driven to achieve *general* harmony between
inner and outer worlds - rather than just specific cases of congruence?
Why would a desire for specific cases of congruence between the inner
and outer worlds lead an AGI (that is not programmed or trained to do
so) to
Hi Ben,
Adding Choice to the mix provides a principle-level motivation not to
impose one's own will upon the universe without considering the wills
of others as well...
Whose choice - everyone or the AGI? That has to be specified in the
ethic - otherwise it could be the AGI only - then
Ben,
I've just finished reading your 14 February version of Encouraging a
Positive Transcension.
It's taken me two reads of the paper to become clear on a few issues.
It seems to me that there are really three separate ethical issues at the
heart of the paper that have been conflated
Ben,
Which list do you want Encouraging a Positive Transcension discussed
on? AGI or SL4? It could get cumbersome having effectively the same
discussion on both lists.
Thanks for the paper. it was stimulating read.
I have a few quibbles.
You discuss the value of aligning with universal
Does anyone have an up-to-date fix on how much computation occurs
(if any) within-cells (as opposed to the traditional neural net level) that
are part of biolgical brain systems? especially in the case of
animals that have a premium placed on the number of neurones they
can support
Thanks Bill for the Eric Baum reference.
Deep thinker that I am, I've just read the book review on Amazon and
that has orientated me to some of the key ideas in the book (I hope!) so
I'm happy to start speculating without having actually read the book.
(See the review below.)
It seems
Hi Ben,
So, I am skeptical that an AI can really think effectively in ANY
domain unless it has done a lot of learning based on grounded
knowledge in SOME domain first; because I think advanced cognitive
schemata will evolve only through learning based on grounded
knowledge...
OK. I think
Hi Ben,
What you said to Debbie Duong sound intuitively right to me. I think
that most human intuition would be inferential rather than a simulation.
but it seems that higher primates store a huge amount of data on the
members of their clan - so my guess is that we do a lot of simulating of
Hi Ben,
Well, this appears to be the order we're going to do for the Novamente
project -- in spite of my feeling that this isn't ideal -- simply due
to the way the project is developing via commercial applications of the
half-completed system. And, it seems likely that the initial
Hi Ben,
Maybe we do simulate a *bit* more with out groups than I first thought -
but we do it using caricature stereotypes based on *ungrounded* data -
ie. we refuse to use grounded data (from our ingroup), perhaps, since
that would make these outgroup people uncomfortably too much like
us.
Hi Ben,
(I sent this message a couple of hours ago and it didn't come through
so I've just resent the message in case it's just disappeared into
cyberspace - never to reappear.)
An AI mind can spin off a clone of itself with parameters re-tuned to
be more speculative and intellectually
Hi Ben,
I've just read: Science, Probability and Human Nature: A
Sociological/ Computational/ Probabilist Philosophy of Science. It's
accessible (thanks) and very thought provoking.
As I read the paper, I imagined how these questions might relate to the
creation and training and activities
Hi Ben,
For example, consider the two scenarios where AGI's are developed by
a) the US Army
b) Sony's toy division
In the one case, AGI's are introduced to the world as super-soldiers (or
super virtual fighter pilots, super strategy analyzers,etc.); in the other
case, as robot companions
Why not get a few AGIs jobs working on modelling of the widespread
introduction of AGIs - under a large number of scenario conditions to
find the transition paths that don't result in mayhem and chaos - for us
humans and for them too.
Cheers, Philip
---
To unsubscribe, change your
Ben,
I think that modeling of transition scenarios could be interesting,
but I also think we need to be clear about what its role will be: a
stimulant to thought about transition scenarios. I think it's
extremely unlikely that such models are going to be *accurate* in any
significant sense.
Hi Kevin,
I was able to reach the article at a different address:
http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2003/10/14/itfeature/6414580sec=technology
Cheers, Philip
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to
Hi Ben,
It just occurred to me that very early in a Novamente's training you
might want to give it more than one set of coordinated communication
channels so that the Novamente can learn to communicate with more
than one external intelligence at a time.
My guess is that this would lead to a a
Hi Ben,
I'm not an electronics expert but my electric tooth brush runs on an
induction 'connection' so there's no need for a bare wire conection to an
electric circuit. Maybe a covered ground-level induction grid could be
set up. Also you could run an electric cord to the robot. Also I had
Hi Ben,
I've just read your paper (Goertzel Pennachin) at:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2003/NovamenteSimulations.htm
I'm not expert in any of this - but I'm 10 years and three years into
raising two kids so that gives me some experience that might or might
not be useful
I thought what
Hi Mike,
Conceptual necessity .. Bosons, fermions, atoms, galaxies,
stars, planets, DNA, cells, organisms, societies, information,
computers, AGI's, the Singularity, it's all inevitable because of
conceptual necessity.
I think that what you are talking about is not conceptual
Hi Ben,
If Novababies are going to play and learn in a simulated world which is
most likely based on an agent-based/object-orientated programming
foundation, would it be useful for the basic Novamente to have prebuilt
capacity for agent-based modelling? Would this in be necessary if a
Hi Ben,
Have you come across Game Maker 5? Its a freeware program that
can be used to create reasonably simple computer games, fast.
See: www.gamemaker.nl
It might be useful for very early stage virtual worlds where you don't
need true 3D.
Cheers, Philip
---
To unsubscribe, change
Ben,
I think there's a prior question to a Novamente learning how to
perceive/act through an agent in a simulated world.
I think the first issue is for Novamente to discover that, as an intrinsic
part of its nature, it can interact with the world via more than one agent
interface.
Biological
Hi Ben,
I think this is a great way to give one or more Novamentes the
experience it/they need to develop mentally, in a controlled
environment and in an environment where the need for massive
computational power to handle sensory data is cut (I would imagine)
hugely thus leaving
Eliezer,
As a counter to my own previous argument
about the risk of the
simultaneous failure of AGIs, your argument is likely to be closest to
being right in certain circumstances after the time dimension is taken
into account.
Our previous argument has been around
the black and white
Ben,
would you rather
have one person with an IQ of 200, or 4 people with
IQ's of 50? Ten
computers of intelligence N, or one computer with
intelligence
10*N ? Sure, the intelligence of the ten computers of
intelligence
N will be a little smarter than N, all together, because
of
Hi Pei / Colin,
Pei: This is
the conclusion that I have been most afraid of from this
Friendly
AI discussion. Yes, AGI can be very dangerous, and I don't
think any of
the solutions proposed so far can eliminate the danger
completely. However
I don't think this is a valid reason to
Ben,
Ben: That paragraph
gave one possible dynamic in a society of AGI's,
but there are
many many other possible social dynamics
Of course. What you say is quite
true. But so what?
Let's go back to that one possible
dynamic. Can't you bring yourself to
agree that if a one-and-only
Pei,
I also have a very low expectation on what the current Friendly AI
discussion can contribute to the AGI research.
OK - that's a good issue to focus on then.
In an earlier post Ben described three ways that ethical systems could
be facilitated:
A) Explicit programming-in of ethical
Ben,
I think Pei's
point is related to the following point
We're now working
on aspects of
A) explicit programming-in
of ideas and processes
B) Explicit programming-in
of methods specially made for the learning
of ideas and processes through experience and teaching
and that until
Ben,
I can see some
possible value in giving a system these goals, and
giving it a strong
motivation to figure out what the hell humans mean
by the words
care, living, etc. These rules are then really rule
templates
with instructions for filling them in...
Yes.
However, I view
Hi Eliezer,
This does not
follow. If an AI has a P chance of going feral, then a
society of AIs
may have P chance of all simultaneously going feral
I can see you point but I don't agree
with it.
If General Motors churns out 100,000
identical cars with all the same
charcteristics
Eliezer,
That's because your view of this problem has automatically factored
out all the common variables. All GM cars fail when dropped off a
cliff. All GM cars fail when crashed at 120 mph. All GM cars fail on
the moon, in space, underwater, in a five-dimensional universe. All
GM cars
Ben,
OK - so Novamente has a system for
handling 'importance' already and
there is an importance updating function that feeds back to other aspects of
Attention Value. That's good in terms of Novamente having an internal
architecture capable of supporting and ethical system.
You're
Ben,
I don't
have a good argument on this point, just an intuition, based
on the fact that
generally speaking in narrow AI, inductive learning
based rules based
on a very broad range of experience, are much more
robust than expert-encoded
rules. The key is a broad range of
experience,
Ben,
Philip:
I think an AGI needs other AGIs to relate to as a community so that a
community
of learning develops with multiple perspectives available.
This I think
is the only way that the accelerating bootstraping of
AGIs can
be handled with any possibility of being safe. **
Ben,
One question
is whether it's enough to create general
pattern-recognition
functionality, and let it deal with seeking
meaning for symbols
as a subcase of its general behavior. Or does
one need to create
special heuristics/algorithms/structures just for
guiding this
particular
Ben/Kevin,
The dynamics of evolution through progressive self-re-engineering
will, in my view, be pretty different from the dynamics of evolution
through natural selection.
Lamarkian evolution (cf. Darwinian evolution) gets a new lease of life!
Cheers, Philip
---
To unsubscribe,
If an AGI can self-improve what is
the likelihood that the AGI will
remain general and will not instead evolve itself rapidly to be a super-
intelligent specialist following the goal(s) that grab its attention early in
life? I think that most humans tend to move in the specialist direction
Ben,
OK... life lesson #567: When a mathematical explanation confuses
non-math people, another mathematical explanation is not likely to
help
While I can't help with the solution, I can say that this version of your
problem at last made sense to me - previous version were
incomprehensible
Ed,
From my adventures in physics, I came to the conclusion that my
understanding of the physical world had more to do with 1. My ability
to create and use tools for modeling, i.e. from the physical tools of
an advanced computer system to my internal abstraction tools like a
new theorem of
Brad/Ben/all,
I think Ben's point about not trying to emulate biological brains with
computers is quite important.
The medium they are working with (living cells, computer chips are
very different). Effective brains emerge out of an interplay between
the fundamental substrate and the
Stephen Reed said:
Suppose that 30-50 thousand state of the art computers are equivalent
to the brain's processing power (using Moravec's assumptions). If
global desktop computer system sales are in the neighborhood of 130
million units, then we have the computer processing equivalent of
Hi Eliezer/Ben,
My recollection was that Eliezer initiated the Breaking AIXI-tl
discussion as a way of proving that friendliness of AGIs had to be
consciously built in at the start and couldn't be assumed to be
teachable at a later point. (Or have I totally lost the plot?)
Do you feel the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Philip Sutton
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [agi] Novamente: how crtical is self-improvement to
getting human parity?
Hi Ben,
As far
I was just thinking, it might be useful to make sure that in pusuing the
Breaking AIXI-tl - AGI friendliness debate we should be clear what the
starting issue is.
I think it is best defined by Eliezer's post on 12 Feb and Ben's reply of
the same day
Eliezer's post:
Hi Ben,
From a high order implications point of view I'm not sure that we need
too much written up from the last discussion.
To me it's almost enough to know that both you and Eliezer agree that
the AIXItl system can be 'broken' by the challenge he set and that a
human digital simulation
Eliezer/Ben,
When you've had time to draw breath can you explain, in non-obscure,
non-mathematical language, what the implications of the AIXI-tl
discussion are?
Thanks.
Cheers, Philip
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to
Bill,
Gulp..who was the Yank who said ... it was I ??? Johnny Appleseed
or something?
Well, it my turn to fess up. I'm pretty certain that it was my slip of the
keyboard who started it all. Sorry.
:)
My only excuse is that in my area of domain knowledge King Hubbard
is very famous.
Ben/Bill,
My feeling is that goals and ethics are not identical concepts. And I
would think that goals would only make an intentional ethical
contribution if they related to the empathetic consideration of others.
So whether ethics are built in from the start in the Novamente
architecture
Ben,
Right from the start, even before there is an intelligent autonomous mind
there, there will be goals that are of the basic structural character of
ethical goals. I.e. goals that involve the structure of compassion, of
adjusting the system's actions to account for the well-being of
Eliezer,
In this discussion you have just moved the focus to the superiority of
one AGI approach versus another in terms of *interacting with
humans*.
But once one AGI exists it's most likely not long before there are more
AGIs and there will need to be a moral/ethical system to guide AGI-AGI
A number of people have expressed concern about making AGIs 'self'
aware - fearing that this will lead to selfish behaviour.
however I don't think that AGIs can actually be ethical without being
able to develop awareness of the needs of others and I don't think you
can be aware of others needs
Ben,
I agree that a functionally-specialized Ethics Unit could make sense in
an advanced Novamente configuration. .devoting a Unit to ethics
goal-refinement on an architectural level would be a simple way of
ensuring resource allocation to ethics processing through successive
system
Brad,
But I think that the further down you go towards the primitive level,
the more and more specialized everything is. While they all use
neurons, the anatomy, and neurophysiology of low level brain areas are
so drastically different from one another as to be conceptually
distinct.
I
Has anyone on the list looked in any detail at the link between brain
damage and anti-social behaviour and the possible implications for
hardwiring of moral capacity? Specifically has anyone looked at the
contribution that brain damage or brain development disorders may
make towards the
Hi Jonathan,
I think Sim City and many of the Sim games would be good but
Civilization 3 and Alpha Centauri and Black White are highly
competitive and allow huge scope for being combative.
Compared to earlier versions, Civilisation 3 has added more options for
non-war based domination but
A very large number of computer games are based on competition and
frequently combat. If we train an AGI on an average selection of
current computer games is it possible that a lot of implicit ethical
training will happen at the same time (ie. the AGI starts to see the world
as revolving
I've just read the first chapter of The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect
It makes you realise that Ben's notion that ethical structures should be
based on a hierarchy going from general to specific is very valid - if
Prime Intellect had been programmed
Dear AGIers,
I presume that Youlian Troyanov was speaking tongue-in-cheek,
because the Dr Mboyo email is of course a scam.
It has the same form as the now famous Nigerian scams. See:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/nigeria.htm
Nobody should touch this stuff with a 10 foot barge pole - or
Hi David
What of the possibility, Ben, of an Asimov-like reaction to the
possibility of thinking machines that compete with humans? It's the
kind of dumb, Man-Was-Not-Meant-to-Go-There, scenario we see all the
time on Sci-Fi Channel productions, but it is plausible, especially in
a world
Ben Goertzel wrote:
What if iterative self-revision causes the system's goal G to drift
over time...
I think this is inevitable - it's just evolution keeping on going as it always
will. The key issue then is what processes can be set in train to operate
throughout time to keep evolution
81 matches
Mail list logo
