Hi Richard,
I don't really want to get too sidetracked, but even if Immerman's
analysis were correct, would this make a difference to the way that Eric
was using NP-Hard, though?
No, Immerman's perspective on complexity classes doesn't really affect
your objections...
Firstly, the
Richard,
I know it's peripheral to your main argument, but in this example ...
Suppose that the computational effort that evolution needs to build
different sized language understanding mechanisms scales as:
2.5 * (N/7 + 1)^^6 planet-years
... where different sized is captured by the value
Sorry for my delay in responding... too busy to keep up with most
of this, just got some downtime and scanning various messages:
I don't know what you mean by incrementally updateable, but if
you look up the literature on language learning, you will find
that learning various sorts of
I don't know what you mean by incrementally updateable,
but if you look up the literature on language learning, you will find
that learning various sorts of relatively simple grammars from
examples, or even if memory serves examples and queries, is NP-hard.
Try looking for Dana Angluin's
I don't think the proofs depend on any special assumptions about the
nature of learning.
I beg to differ. IIRC the sense of learning they require is induction
over example sentences. They exclude the use of real world knowledge,
in spite of the fact that such knowledge (or at least
Ben Jef wrote:
As I see it, the present key challenge of artificial intelligence
is to develop a fast and frugal method of finding fast and frugal
methods,
Ben However, this in itself is not possible. There can be a fast
Ben method of finding fast and frugal methods, or a frugal method of
Eric wrote:
The challenge is to find a methodology
for producing fast enough and frugal enough code, where that
methodology is practicable. For example, as a rough upper bound,
it would be practicable if it required 10,000 programmer years and
1,000,000 PC-years (i.e a $3Bn budget).
(Why should
Eric Baum wrote:
As I and Jef and you appear to agree, extant Intelligence
works because it exploits structure *of our world*; there is
and can be (unless P=NP or some such radical and unlikely
possibility) no such thing as as General Intelligence that
works in all worlds.
I'm going to
Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am afraid that it may not be possible to find an initial project that is both
* small
* clearly a meaningfully large step along the path to AGI
* of significant practical benefit
I'm afraid you're right. It is especially difficult because there is a long
Jef wrote:
As I see it, the present key challenge of artificial intelligence is to
develop a fast and frugal method of finding fast and frugal methods,
However, this in itself is not possible. There can be a fast method
of finding fast and frugal methods, or a frugal method of finding fast
Ben, I think it would be beneficial, at least to me, to see a list of tasks. Not as a "defining" measure in any way. But as a list of work items that a general AGI should be able to complete effectively. I started on a list, and pulled some information off the net before, but never completed one.
Hi,
On 11/6/06, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
I think it would be beneficial, at least to me, to see a list of tasks.
Not as a defining measure in any way. But as a list of work items that a
general AGI should be able to complete effectively.
I agree, and I think that this
Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,On 11/6/06, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben, I think it would be beneficial, at least to me, to see a list of tasks. Not as a "defining" measure in any way. But as a list of work items that a general AGI should be able to complete
How much of the Novamente system is meant to be autonomous, and how much
will be responding only from external stymulus such as a question or a task
given externally.
Is it intended after awhile to run on its own where it would be up 24
hours a day, exploring potentially some by itself, or more
On 11/4/06, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/4/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I of course don't think that SHRDLU vs. AGISim is a fair comparison.
Agreed. SHRDLU didn't even try to solve the real problems - for the simple
and sufficient reason that it was impossible to
It does not help that words in SHRDLU are grounded in an artificial world. Its
failure to scale hints that approaches such as AGI-Sim will have similar
problems. You cannot simulate complexity.
I of course don't think that SHRDLU vs. AGISim is a fair comparison.
Among other
- Original Message
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2006 9:28:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [agi] Natural versus formal AI interface languages
I do not agree that having precise quantitative measures of system
intelligence is critical
Another reason for measurements is that it makes your goals concrete. How do you define general
intelligence? Turing gave us a well defined goal, but there are some shortcomings. The Turing test is
subjective, time consuming, isn't appropriate for robotics, and really isn't a good goal if it
I am happy enough with the long-term goal of independent scientific
and mathematical discovery...
And, in the short term, I am happy enough with the goals of carrying
out the (AGISim versions of) the standard tasks used by development
psychologists to study childrens' cognitive behavior...
I
On 11/4/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I of course don't think that SHRDLU vs. AGISim is a fair comparison.Agreed. SHRDLU didn't even try to solve the real problems - for the simple and sufficient reason that it was impossible to make a credible attempt at such on the hardware of the
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:26:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [agi] Natural versus formal AI interface languages
Here is how I intend to use Lojban++ in teaching Novamente. When
Novamente is controlling a humanoid agent in the AGISim
Hi,
I think an interesting goal would be to teach an AGI to write software. If I
understand your explanation, this is the same problem.
Yeah, it's the same problem.
It's a very small step from Lojban to a programming language, and in
fact Luke Kaiser and I have talked about making a
Hi.
It's a very small step from Lojban to a programming language, and in
fact Luke Kaiser and I have talked about making a programming language
syntax based on Lojban, using his Speagram program interpreter
framework.
The nice thing about Lojban is that it does have the flexibility to be
used
Luke wrote:
It seems to be like this: when you start programming, even though the
syntax is still natural, the language gets really awkward and does not
resemble the way you would express the same thing naturally. For me it
just shows that the real problem is somewhere deeper, in the semantic
For comparison, here are some versions of
I saw the man with the telescope
in Lojban++ ...
[ http://www.goertzel.org/papers/lojbanplusplus.pdf ]
1)
mi pu see le man sepi'o le telescope
I saw the man, using the telescope as a tool
2)
mi pu see le man pe le telescope
I saw the man who was with
Hi,
Which brings up a question -- is it better to use a language based on
term or predicate logic, or one that imitates (is isomorphic to) natural
languages? A formal language imitating a natural language would have the
same kinds of structures that almost all natural languages have:
Eliezer wrote:
Natural language isn't. Humans have one specific idiosyncratic
built-in grammar, and we might have serious trouble learning to
communicate in anything else - especially if the language was being used
by a mind quite unlike our own.
Well, some humans have learned to communicate
I know people can learn Lojban, just like they can learn Cycl or LISP. Lets
not repeat these mistakes. This is not training, it is programming a knowledge
base. This is narrow AI.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem not to understand the purpose of using Lojban to help teach an
28 matches
Mail list logo
