It shouldnt matter how a general ontology is used, it should be available for
multiple different AI and AGI processes, to be generally useful.
And the key thing about this usage is it doesnt get any information from a
single text, but extracts patterns from the mass usage, reading a single
Mainly as a primer ontology / knowledge representation data set for an AGI to
work with.
Having a number of facts known without having to be typed in about many
frames and connections between frames gives an AGI a good booster to start with.
Taken a simple set of common words in a house
I had been thinking about something along these lines, though not worded as you
have in this message yet.
What I would be most interested in at this point is a knowledge gathering
system somewhere along these lines, where the main AGI could be
centralized/clustered or distributed, but where
On Dec 13, 2007 12:09 AM, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mainly as a primer ontology / knowledge representation data set for an AGI
to work with.
Having a number of facts known without having to be typed in about many
frames and connections between frames gives an AGI a good
On 12/12/07, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would allow a large amount of knowledge to be extracted in a
distributed manner, keeping track of the quality of information gathered
from each person as a trust metric, and many facts would be gathered and
checked for truth.
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:51 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Richard,
What is your specific complaint about the 'viability of the framework'?
Ed,
This line of data gathering is very
-
From: James Ratcliff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:26 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think:
http://www.falazar.com/AI
--- Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matt, Wonderful idea, now it will even show the typical human trait of
lying...when i ask it do you still love me? most answers in its database
will have Yes as an answer but when i ask it 'what's my name?' it'll call
me John?
My proposed
On Dec 11, 2007 7:26 PM, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think:
http://www.falazar.com/AI/AAAI05_Student_Abtract_James_Ratcliff.pdf
Would like to work with others on a full fledged Reprensentation system that
could use these kind of
Hi Matt, Wonderful idea, now it will even show the typical human trait of
lying...when i ask it do you still love me? most answers in its database will
have Yes as an answer but when i ask it 'what's my name?' it'll call me John?
However, your approach is actually already being implemented to
THE KEY POINT I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS WAS ABOUT NOT HAVING TO
EXPLICITLY DEAL WITH 500K TUPLES
And I asked -- Do you believe that this is some sort of huge conceptual
breakthrough?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options,
that Collin's paper discloses.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:09 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
THE KEY POINT I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS WAS ABOUT
Ed,
Get a grip. Try to write with complete words in complete sentences
(unless discreted means a combination of excreted and discredited -- which
works for me :-).
I'm not coming back for a second swing. I'm still pursuing the first
one. You just aren't oriented well enough to
, December 06, 2007 1:24 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed,
Get a grip. Try to write with complete words in complete sentences
(unless discreted means a combination of excreted and discredited -- which
works for me :-).
I'm
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Google, but I don't like monopolies, whether it
is Microsoft or Google. I think it is vitally important that there be
several viable search competators.
I wish this wicki one luck. As I said, it sounds a lot like your
PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research])
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Google, but I don't like monopolies, whether
it
is Microsoft or Google. I think it is vitally
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Does a PC become more vulnerable to viruses, worms, Trojan horses, root
kits, and other web attacks if it becomes part of a P2P network? And if so
why and how much.
It does if the P2P software has vulnerabilities, just like any other server or
Richard,
What is your specific complaint about the 'viability of the framework'?
Ed,
This line of data gathering is very interesting to me as well, though I found
quickly that using all web sources quickly devolved into insanity.
By using scanned text novels, I was able to extract lots of
.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research])
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Does a PC become more vulnerable to viruses, worms, Trojan horses, root
kits, and other web attacks if it becomes part of a P2P
On 06/12/2007, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
So if it is perceived as something that increases a machine's vulnerability,
it seems to me that would be one more reason for people to avoid using it.
Ed Porter
Why are you having this discussion on an AGI list?
Will Pearson
-
On Dec 7, 2007 1:20 AM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I have been telling people for years. That you should be
able to extract a significant amount (but probably far from all) world
knowledge by scanning large corpora of text. I would love to see how well
it actually
it actually works for a given size of corpora, and for a given level of
algorithmic sophistication.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: James Ratcliff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:51 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level
level [WAS Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research])
On 06/12/2007, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
So if it is perceived as something that increases a machine's
vulnerability,
it seems to me that would be one more reason for people to avoid using it.
Ed Porter
Why are you having
--- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
So if it is perceived as something that increases a machine's
vulnerability,
it seems to me that would be one more reason for people to avoid using it.
Ed Porter
Why are you having
, but it
doesn't stop people from using them.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:06 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS
Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research
stop people from using them.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:06 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research])
--- Ed Porter
Edward,
It's certainly a trick question, since if you don't define semantics
for this knowledge thing, it can turn out to be anything from simplest
do-nothings to full-blown physically-infeasible superintelligences. So
you assertion doesn't cut the viability of knowledge extraction for
various
of the lots
of relational information on a range of topics.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:02 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research
information on a range of topics.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:02 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Edward,
It's certainly a trick
it destroys us.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:17 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research])
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL
on this list this far from reality if one pursues them?
- Original Message -
From: Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
The particular NL parser paper
: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:16 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
On 12/5/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip] Centralized search is limited to a few big players that
can keep a copy of the Internet
, 2007 10:27 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi]
Funding AGI research]
Interesting. Since I am interested in parsing, I read
Collin's paper. It's a solid piece of work (though with the stated error
ED PORTER= The 500K dimensions were mentioned several times in a
lecture Collins gave at MIT about his parse. This was probably 5 years ago
so I am not 100% sure the number was 500K, but I am about 90% sure that was
the number used, and 100% sure the number was well over 100K.
OK. I'll
: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed Porter wrote:
Mark,
MARK WASER=== You claim that It is actually showing that you can do
something roughly equivalent to growing neural gas (GNG) in a space with
something approaching 500,000 dimensions, but you can do
it is potentially capability of
matching it against any of its dimensions.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:07 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research
Dimensions is an awfully odd word for that since dimensions are normally
assumed to be orthogonal.
- Original Message -
From: Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI
HeavySarcasmWow. Is that what dot products are?/HeavySarcasm
You're confusing all sorts of related concepts with a really garbled
vocabulary.
Let's do this with some concrete 10-D geometry . . . . Vector A runs from
(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) to (1, 1, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0). Vector B runs from
.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
HeavySarcasmWow. Is that what dot products are?/HeavySarcasm
You're confusing all sorts of related concepts with a really garbled
vocabulary.
Let's do this with some concrete 10-D geometry . . . . Vector A runs
They need not be.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:04 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Dimensions is an awfully odd word for that since dimensions
On 12/5/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip] Centralized search is limited to a few big players that
can keep a copy of the Internet on their servers. Google is certainly
useful,
but imagine if it searched a space 1000 times larger and if posts were
instantly added to its
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My design would use most of the Internet (10^9 P2P nodes). Messages
would be
natural language text strings, making no distinction between documents,
queries, and responses. Each message would have a header indicating the
ID
and time stamp of
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Perhaps your are right.
But one problem is that big Google-like compuplexes in the next five to ten
years will be powerful enough to do AGI and they will be much more efficient
for AGI search because the physical closeness of their machines
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My design would use most of the Internet (10^9 P2P nodes). Messages
would be
natural language text strings, making no distinction between documents,
queries, and responses. Each message would have a
-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:24 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re:
[agi] Funding AGI research])
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Perhaps your are right.
But one
Bryan, The name grub sounds familiar. That is probably it. Ed
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:47 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
On Thursday 29
listening to or conversing with.
ED PORTER
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:47 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed Porter wrote:
I'm sorry
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:42 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed,
Well it'd be nice having a supercomputer but P2P is a poor man's
supercomputer and beggars can't be choosy.
Honestly the type
Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE= You have no idea of the context in which I made
that sweeping dismissal.
If you have enough experience of research in this area you will know
that it is filled with bandwagons, hype and publicity-seeking. Trivial
models are presented as if they are
.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:58 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE= You have no idea of the context
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John,
I am sure there is interesting stuff that can be done. It would be
interesting just to see what sort of an agi could be made on a PC.
Yes it would be interesting to see what could be done on a small cluster of
modern server grade computers. I
index links to more efficiency allocate index activations.
How does your intelligent indexing work?
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:17 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re
happens there :)
So that's it without getting too into details. Very primitive still ...
John
-Original Message-
From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:17 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
IN my Mon 12/3/2007 8:17 PM post to John Rose from which your are probably
quoting below I discussed the bandwidth issues. I am assuming nodes
directly talk to each other, which is probably overly optimistic, but still
are limited by the fact
the man.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:42 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
IN my Mon 12/3
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
It is not clear how valuable your 25 years of hard won learning is if
it causes you to dismiss valuable scientific work that seems to have
eclipsed the importance of anything I or you have published as
trivial exercises in public relations without giving any reason
Thus: building a NL parser, no matter how good it is, is of no use
whatsoever unless it can be shown to emerge from (or at least fit with)
a learning mechanism that allows the system itself to generate its own
understanding (or, at least, acquisition) of grammar IN THE CONTEXT OF A
MECHANISM
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MATT MAHONEY= My design would use most of the Internet (10^9 P2P
nodes).
ED PORTER= That's ambitious. Easier said than done unless you have a
Google, Microsoft, or mass popular movement backing you.
It would take some free software that people
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Thus: building a NL parser, no matter how good it is, is of no use
whatsoever unless it can be shown to emerge from (or at least fit with)
a learning mechanism that allows the system itself to generate its own
understanding (or, at least, acquisition) of grammar IN THE
well in a sparsely connected world.
That is important, for those with the vision to understand.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:59 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re
the massive interconnected needed for powerful
AGI much more efficiently.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:18 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research
OK, understood...
On Dec 4, 2007 9:32 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Thus: building a NL parser, no matter how good it is, is of no use
whatsoever unless it can be shown to emerge from (or at least fit with)
a learning mechanism that allows the
On Sunday 02 December 2007, John G. Rose wrote:
Building up parse trees and word sense models, let's say that would
be a first step. And then say after a while this was accomplished and
running on some peers. What would the next theoretical step be?
I am not sure what the next step would be.
Ed Porter wrote:
Once you build up good models for parsing and word sense, then you read
large amounts of text and start building up model of the realities described
and generalizations from them.
Assuming this is a continuation of the discussion of an AGI-at-home P2P
system, you are going to
could be a valuable
initial source of one component of world knowledge for use by AGI.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:33 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason it reminds me of this episode is that you are calmly talking
here about the high dimensional problem of seeking to understand the
meaning of text, which often involve multiple levels of implication,
which would normally be
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Menawhile, unfortunately, solving all those other issues like making
parsers and trying to do word-sense disambiguation would not help one
whit to get the real theoretical task done.
I agree. AI has a long history of doing the easy part of the
Matt:: The whole point of using massive parallel computation is to do the
hard part of the problem.
I get it : you and most other AI-ers are equating hard with very, very
complex, right? But you don't seriously think that the human mind
successfully deals with language by massive parallel
From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure what the next step would be. The first step might be
enough for the moment. When you have the network functioning at all,
expose an API so that other programmers can come in and try to utilize
sentence analysis (and other functions)
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once you build up good models for parsing and word sense, then you read
large amounts of text and start building up model of the realities
described
and generalizations from them.
Assuming this is a continuation of the discussion of an AGI-at-home
John G. Rose wrote:
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
I am not being negative, I am just relaying the standard understanding
of priorities in the AGI field as a whole. Send complaints addressed to
AGI Community, not to me, please.
You are being negative! And since
Mike Tintner wrote:
Matt:: The whole point of using massive parallel computation is to do the
hard part of the problem.
I get it : you and most other AI-ers are equating hard with very,
very complex, right? But you don't seriously think that the human mind
successfully deals with language
.
Richard Loosemore
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:07 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed Porter wrote:
Once you build up good models
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is easy for a research field to agree that certain problems are
really serious and unsolved.
A hundred years ago, the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments
were a big unsolved problem, and pretty serious for the foundations of
in a complex context without massive
computation?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:12 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Matt:: The whole point of using massive
On Dec 3, 2007 12:12 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get it : you and most other AI-ers are equating hard with very, very
complex, right? But you don't seriously think that the human mind
successfully deals with language by massive parallel computation, do you?
Very very complex
RL: One thing that can be easily measured is the activation of lexical
items related in various ways to a presented word (i.e. show the subject
the word Doctor and test to see if the word Nurse gets activated).
It turns out that within an extremely short time of the forst word being
seen, a very
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the one hand, we can perhaps agree that one of the brain's glories is
that it can very rapidly draw analogies - that I can quickly produce a
string of associations like, say, snake, rope, chain, spaghetti
strand, - and you may quickly be able to
he
generously shares credit for Confabulation) -- and believe!
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:49 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed
MIKE TINTNER Isn't it obvious that the brain is able to understand the
wealth of language by relatively few computations - quite intricate,
hierarchical, multi-levelled processing,
ED PORTER How do you find the right set of relatively few computations
and/or models that are appropriate in a
Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE I cannot even begin to do justice, here, to the issues
involved in solving the high dimensional problem of seeking to understand
the meaning of text, which often involve multiple levels of implication,
which would normally be accomplished by some sort of search
Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE I cannot even begin to do justice, here, to the issues
involved in solving the high dimensional problem of seeking to understand
the meaning of text, which often involve multiple levels of implication,
which would normally be accomplished by some sort of search
Matt: Semantic models learn associations by proximity in the training text.
The
degree to which you associate snake and rope depends on how often these
words appear near each other
Correct me - but it's the old, old problem here, isn't it? Those semantic
models/programs won't be able to form
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do not know the number and width of the spreading activation that is
necessary for human level reasoning over world knowledge. Thus, we really
don't know how much interconnect is needed and thus how large of a P2P net
would be needed for impressive
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt: Semantic models learn associations by proximity in the training text.
The
degree to which you associate snake and rope depends on how often these
words appear near each other
Correct me - but it's the old, old problem here, isn't it? Those
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:25 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
MIKE TINTNER Isn't it obvious that the brain is able to understand
the
wealth
RICHARD LOOSEMORE= I'm sorry, but this is not addressing the actual
issues involved.
You are implicitly assuming a certain framework for solving the problem
of representing knowledge ... and then all your discussion is about
whether or not it is feasible to implement that framework (to
Richard Loosemore= None of the above is relevant. The issue is not
whether toy problems
set within the current paradigm can be done with this or that search
algorithm, it is whether the current paradigm can be made to converge at
all for non-toy problems.
Ed Porter= Richard, I
that.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:51 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do not know the number and width
03, 2007 8:51 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do not know the number and width of the spreading activation that is
necessary for human level reasoning over world knowledge. Thus, we
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Ed Porter wrote:
Somebody (I think it was David Hart) told me there is a shareware
distributed web crawler already available, but I don't know the
details, such as how good or fast it is.
http://grub.org/
Previous owner went by the name of 'kordless'. I found him
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard Loosemore= None of the above is relevant. The issue is not
whether toy problems
set within the current paradigm can be done with this or that search
algorithm, it is whether the current paradigm can be made to converge at
all for non-toy problems.
Ed
Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE= I'm sorry, but this is not addressing the actual
issues involved.
You are implicitly assuming a certain framework for solving the problem
of representing knowledge ... and then all your discussion is about
whether or not it is feasible to implement
RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]ED Yes,
but there are a lot of types of thinking that cannot be done by shape alone,
and shape is actually much more complicated than shape. There is shape, and
shape distorted by perspective, and shape changed by bending
_
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:17 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi]
Funding AGI research
: Saturday, December 01, 2007 6:41 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI
research]
John,
I tested Exeter, NH to LA at 5371kbs download, and 362Kbs upload.
Strangelly
my scores were slightly slower to NYC.
Just throwing out ideas
PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Ed,
That is probably a good rough estimate. There are more headers for the more
frequently transmitted smaller messages but a 16 byte header may be a bit
large.
Here is a speedtest link -
http
increases.
John
-Original Message-
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:10 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI
research]
John,
Thanks.
Can P2P transmission match the same roughly 27
-
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:06 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI
research]
John,
Thanks. I guess that means and AGI-at-home system could be both up-
loading
and receiving
RL:However, I have previously written a good deal about the design of
different types of motivation system, and my understanding of the likely
situation is that by the time we had gotten the AGI working, its
motivations would have been arranged in such a way that it would *want*
to be extremely
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
