...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/14 Valentina Poletti jamwa...@gmail.com:
Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology,
so
much knowledge in this time is precisely the we, it's the union of
several
individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other
Not in reference to any specific current discussion,
I find it interesting that when people talk of human like intelligence in
the realm of AGI, they refer to the ability of a human individual, or human
brain if you like. It just occurred to me that human beings are not that
intelligent. Well, of
And here is your first question on AGI.. actually rather on AI. It's not so
trivial though.
Some researchers are telling me that no-one has actually figured out how AI
algorithms, such as ANNs and genetic algorithms work.. in other words there
is no mathematical explanation to prove their
The lectures are pretty good in quality, compared with other major
university on-line lectures (such as MIT and so forth) I followed a couple
of them and definitely recommend. You learn almost as much as in a real
course.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Kingma, D.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I think it's the surprize that makes you laugh actually, not physical
pain in other people. I find myself laughing at my own mistakes often
- not because they hurt (in fact if they did hurt they wouldn't be
funny) but because I get surprized by them.
Valentina
On 9/10/08, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL
I am applying for a research program and I have to chose between these two
schools:
Dalle Molle Institute of Artificial Intelligence
University of Verona (Artificial Intelligence dept)
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS
That's if you aim at getting an AGI that is intelligent in the real world. I
think some people on this list (incl Ben perhaps) might argue that for now -
for safety purposes but also due to costs - it might be better to build an
AGI that is intelligent in a simulated environment.
Ppl like Ben
That sounds like a useful purpose. Yeh, I don't believe in fast and quick
methods either.. but also humans tend to overestimate their own
capabilities, so it will probably take more time than predicted.
On 9/3/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/28 Valentina Poletti [EMAIL
On 8/31/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Protective mechanisms to restrict their thinking and action will only
make things WORSE.
Vlad, this was my point in the control e-mail, I didn't express it quite as
clearly, partly because coming from a different background I use a
I agree with Pei in that a robot's experience is not necessarily more real
than that of a, say, web-embedded agent - if anything it is closer to the *
human* experience of the world. But who knows how limited our own sensory
experience is anyhow. Perhaps a better intelligence would comprehend the
Great articles!
On 9/4/08, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey gang...
It's Likely That Times Are Changing
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/35992/title/It%E2%80%99s_Likely_That_Times_Are_Changing
A century ago, mathematician Hermann Minkowski famously merged space with
Programming definitely feels like an art to me - I get the same feelings as
when I am painting. I always wondered why.
On the phylosophical side in general technology is the ability of humans to
adapt the environment to themselves instead of the opposite - adapting to
the environment. The
On 9/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, could you guys be more specific regarding the statistical
differences of different types of data? What kind of differences are you
talking about specifically (mathematically)? And what about the differences
at the various levels of
So it's about money then.. now THAT makes me feel less worried!! :)
That explains a lot though.
On 8/28/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got ya, thanks for the clarification. That brings up another question.
Why do we want to make an AGI
Define crazy, and I'll define control :)
---
This is crazy. What do you mean by breaking the laws of information
theory? Superintelligence is a completely lawful phenomenon, that can
exist entirely within the laws of physics as we know them and
bootrapped by technology as we know it. It might
Got ya, thanks for the clarification. That brings up another question. Why
do we want to make an AGI?
On 8/27/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An AGI will not design its goals. It is up to humans to define the goals
of an AGI, so that it will do what we want it to do.
the
human species. But until we can do that, to me, is an illusion.
Let me know if I missed something or am misunderstanding anything.
On 8/25/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 8/25/08, Vladimir Nesov
Lol..it's not that impossible actually.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Valentina:In other words I'm looking for a way to mathematically define
how the AGI will mathematically define its goals.
Holy Non-Existent Grail? Has any new branch of logic or
, in mathematical terms, is my question. In other words I'm
looking for a way to mathematically define how the AGI will mathematically
define its goals.
Valentina
On 8/23/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering why no-one had brought up
Vlad, Terren and all,
by reading your interesting discussion, this saying popped in my mind..
admittedly it has little to do with AGI but you might get the point anyhow:
An old lady used to walk down a street everyday, and on a tree by that
street a bird sang beautifully, the sound made her
Chill down Jim, he took it back.
On 8/24/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intolerance of another person's ideas through intimidation or ridicule
is intellectual repression. You won't elevate a discussion by
promoting a program anti-intellectual repression. Intolerance of a
person
In other words, Vladimir, you are suggesting that an AGI must be at some
level controlled from humans, therefore not 'fully-embodied' in order to
prevent non-friendly AGI as the outcome.
Therefore humans must somehow be able to control its goals, correct?
Now, what if controlling those goals
On 8/25/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In other words, Vladimir, you are suggesting that an AGI must be at some
level controlled from humans, therefore not 'fully-embodied' in order to
prevent non
Thanks Rui
On 8/21/08, Rui Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Here: http://delicious.com/h0pe/phds
You can find a list of Doctoral programs related with computational
neurosciences, cognitive sciences and artificial (general) intelligence that
I have been saving since some time ago.
Hope
.
On 8/21/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry if I'm commenting a little late to this: just read the thread. Here
is
a question. I assume we all agree that intelligence can be defined as the
ability
Jim,
I was wondering why no-one had brought up the information-theoretic aspect
of this yet. Are you familiar at all with the mathematics behind such a
description of AGI? I think it is key so I'm glad someone else is studying
that as well.
---
agi
Ben,
Being one of those big-headed children myself.. I have just a peculiar
comment. You probably know this but human intelligence is not limited to the
size of the human skull. That is why communication and social skills are
such important keys to intelligence. An individual by himself can do
Don't you think it might be more closely related to education and culture,
rather than morphologic differences? Especially when reading the rest of the
article - the part on how asians focus on background rather than subjects as
westerners, or how they tend to analyze things relative to context
On 8/8/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The person believes his decision are now guided by free will, but
truly they are still guided by the book: if the book gives him the wrong
meaning of a word, he will make a mistake when answering a Chinese speaker
The translations are guided
Sorry if I'm commenting a little late to this: just read the thread. Here is
a question. I assume we all agree that intelligence can be defined as the
ability to achieve goals. My question concerns the establishment of those
goals. As human beings we move in a world of limitations (life span,
Dear AGIers,
I am looking for a research opportunity in AGI or related neurophysiology. I
won prizes in maths, physics, computer science and general science when I
was younger and have a keen interest in those fields. I'm a pretty good
programmer, and have taught myself neurophysiology and some
That goes back to my previous point on the amount and type of information
our brain is able to extract from a visual input. It would be truly
difficult I say, even using advanced types of neural nets, to give a set of
examples of chairs, such as the ones Mike linked to, and let the machine
Let me ask about a special case of this argument.
Suppose now the book that the guy in the room holds is a chinese-teaching
book for english speakers. The guy can read it for as long as he wishes, and
can consult it in order to give the answers to the chinese speakers
interacting with him.
In
Terren: Substituting an actual human invalidates the experiment, because
then you are bringing something in that can actually do semantics. The point
of the argument is to show how merely manipulating symbols (i.e. the
syntactical domain) is not a demonstration of understanding, no matter what
the
yep.. isn't it amazing how long a thread is becoming based on an experiment
that has no significance?
On 8/6/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back to reason,
This entire thread is yet another example that once you accept a bad
assumption, you can then prove ANY absurd
My view is that the problem with the Chinese Room argument is precisely the
manner in which it uses the word 'understanding'. It is implied that in this
context this word refers to mutual human experience. Understanding has
another meaning, namely the emergent process some of you described, which
Yeh, don't bother writing to him, he stopped reading the AGI posts anyways
:(
On 8/5/08, David Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize for breaking the killthread on my last 2 posts.
Since I have never seen one before on the AGI list, I didn't skim my emails
before commenting.
David
Then again, I was just thinking.. wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of
learning everything from scratch since the day we are born, we were born
with all the knowledge all human beings had acquired until that moment? If
somehow that was inplanted in our DNA? Of course that is not feasable.. but
, it says that a
computer has no understanding, period.
Terren
--- On *Wed, 8/6/08, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
My view is that the problem with the Chinese Room argument is precisely
the manner in which it uses the word 'understanding'. It is implied that in
this context
in a different way than humans, it says that a
computer has no understanding, period.
Terren
--- On *Wed, 8/6/08, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
My view is that the problem with the Chinese Room argument is precisely
the manner in which it uses the word 'understanding
AGI list,
What I see in most of these e-mail list discussions is people with very
diversified backgrounds, cultures, ideas, failing to understand each other.
What people should remember is that e-mail is not even close to a complete
communication medium. By its definition, you are going to miss
Mike:
I wrote my last email in a rush. Basically what I was trying to explain is
precisely the basis of what you call creative process in understanding
words. I simplified the whole thing a lot because I did not even consider
the various layers of mappings - mappings of mappings and so on.
What
This is how I explain it: when we perceive a stimulus, word in this case, it
doesn't reach our brain as a single neuron firing or synapse, but as a set
of already processed neuronal groups or sets of synapses, that each recall
various other memories, concepts and neuronal group. Let me clarify
lol.. well said richard.
the stimuli simply invokes no signiticant response and thus our brain
concludes that we 'don't know'. that's why it takes no effort to realize it.
agi algorithms should be built in a similar way, rather than searching.
Isn't this a bit of a no-brainer? Why would the
Hey Steve,
thanks for the clarifications!
My point was that the operation of most interesting phenomena is NOT
fully understood, but consists of various parts, many of which ARE
understood, or are at least easily understandable. Given the typical figure
6 shape of most problematical
Could you specify what do you mean by synaptic response curve? If it is what
I think it is it is far from linear, at least from the textbooks I read, so
I am probably not following you.
On 7/9/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike, et al,
When you look at the actual experiments
46 matches
Mail list logo
