Hey but it makes for an excellent quote. Facts don't have to be true if they're
beautiful or funny! ;-)
Sorry Eliezer, but the more famous you become, the more these types of
apocryphal facts will surface... most not even vaguely true... You should be
proud and happy! To quote Mr Bean 'Well, I
Ok, Panu, I agree with *your statement* below.
[Meta: Now how much credit do I get for operationalizing your idea?]
Panu Horsmalahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/04/07 10:42 PM
Now, all we need to do is find 2 AGI designers who agree on something.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
Hm. Memory may be tricking me.
I did a deeper scan of my mind, and found that the only memory I
actually have is that someone at the conference said that they saw I
wasn't in the room that morning, and then looked around to see if
there was a bomb.
I have no memory of the fire thing one
I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban
as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous
way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in
ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very
little about sign language,
On 6/5/07, Panu Horsmalahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, all we need to do is find 2 AGI designers who agree on something.
My guess is that *after* people see and discuss each other's ideas, they'll
be more likely to change their views and be able to synthesize them. At
first we may see a
On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban
as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous
way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in
ordinary English language also applies to sign
On 6/5/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Meta: Now how much credit do I get for operationalizing your idea?]
We can have some default fixed values for relatively-small contributions,
such as the ones we're having now in this brain-storming session.
I think we'll maintain a tree
On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue
that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is
deterministically executing a program.
I suspect an AGI that executes one fixed unchangeable program is not
physically possible.
On 6/5/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue
that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is
deterministically executing a program.
I suspect an AGI that executes one
On 05/06/07, Ricardo Barreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/5/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04/06/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose you build a human level AGI, and argue
that it is not autonomous no matter what it does, because it is
deterministically
This is the kind of control freak tendency that makes many startup
ventures untenable; if you cannot give up some control (and I will grant
such tendencies are not natural), you might not be the best person to be
running such a startup venture.
Yup, my suggestion of giving control to five
This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even
as a joke
Your recollection is *very* different from mine. My recollection is
that you certainly did say it as a joke but that I was *rather* surprised
that you would say such a thing even as a joke. If anyone
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put -
take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , causeand
because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in
practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the
# 7 8 9
Money is good, but the overall AGI theory and program plan is the most
important aspect.
James Ratcliff
YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can people rate the following
things?
1. quick $$, ie salary
2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp
3. freedom to do what
Your brain can be simulated on a large/fast enough von Neumann
architecture.
From the behavioral perspective (which is good enough for AGI) - yes,
but that's not the whole story when it comes to human brain. In our
brains, information not only is and moves but also feels.
It's my
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put -
take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and
because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in
practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the
It will b e very hard at that point to hold up in court, given that the AGI
must choose who gets what, cause there sure aint no precedent for a
non-legal-entity like an AI for making legal decisions.
Will have to have it declared a person first.
James Ratcliff
Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL
I did a deeper scan of my mind, and found that the only memory I actually
have is that someone at the conference said that they saw I wasn't in the
room that morning, and then looked around to see if there was a bomb.
My memory probably was incorrect in terms of substituting fire for bomb
Actually, information theory would argue that if the more compactness was
driven by having less information due to a low transmission speed/bandwidth,
then you would likely have more ambiguity (i.e. less information on the
receiving side) not less.
Also, there have been numerous studies
My guess is that *after* people see and discuss each other's ideas, they'll
be more likely to change their views
Like Ben and Pei and Peter and Eliezer and Sam and Richard and . . . . ? What
are you basing your guess on?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To
Sorry, noticed that after I posted, acting autonomously given that it is acting
Intelligently as well.
I was assuming the existence of an AGI / intelligent machine, and being asked
about the consciousness of that.
An AGI that plans, reasons, and acts autonomously would be conscious.
Where
I think we'll maintain a tree and linked-list hybrid data structure.
AGI would be at the root. Then we allow users to add nodes like
Novamente's breakdown of AGI modules into A, B, C,... and YKY's breakdown
of AGI modules... etc. Also some nodes may be temporally linked, ie task
A can
As I understand it, true sign language (e.g. ASL) has its own syntax and to
some extent tis own vocabulary. The slowness sign language is almost
entirely in those artificial variants where there has been an attempt to
transliterate the spoken language into a set of gestures. Natively signed
To get any further with feelings you again have to have a better definition
and examples of what you are dealing with.
In humans, most feelings and emotions are brought about by chemical changes
in the body yes? Then from there it becomes knowledge in the brain, which we
use to make decisions
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 10:51:54 am Mark Waser wrote:
It's my belief/contention that a sufficiently complex mind will be conscious
and feel -- regardless of substrate.
Sounds like Mike the computer in Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein). Note,
btw, that Mike could be programmed in Loglan
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 11:49:11 am Mark Waser wrote:
Also, there have been numerous studies comparing spoken and sign languages
in terms of sentence structure. The most interesting ones (for both spoken
and sign) are the ones dealing with languages that are invented by small
groups who
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 12:04:21 pm Mark Waser wrote:
But instead, someday real soon now, you're going to realize that such a
credit attribution structure *is* fundamentally isomorphic to AGI.
... which is why it makes sense to look at architectures with a market as one
of their key
On cze 5, 2007, at 00:18, Lukasz Stafiniak wrote:
Speaking of logical approaches to AGI... :-)
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/
Luk … I didn’t find any interesting in PCL
It’s well know that logician research the common features of a wide
variety of logics for many years: from classical
Hi Mike
Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info.
And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need
to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with
Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with
And the Simple / Basic english provides for breaking up of many complex
compound sentences, for shorter structures, that even without the vocabulary
reduction increases the ability to parse sentences greatly.
There is even a Simple English wikipedia, though it seems to lack many articles
and
It will b e very hard at that point to hold up in court, given that the AGI
must choose who gets what, cause there sure aint no precedent for a
non-legal-entity like an AI for making legal decisions.
Will have to have it declared a person first.
There is nothing necessary to hold up in
I think a system can get arbitrarily complex without being conscious --
consciousness is a specific kind of model-based, summarizing,
self-monitoring
architecture.
Yes. That is a good clarification of what I meant rather than what I said.
That said, I think consciousness is necessary
but
But instead, someday real soon now, you're going to realize that such a
credit attribution structure *is* fundamentally isomorphic to AGI.
... which is why it makes sense to look at architectures with a market as
one
of their key mechanisms -- see my book and Eric Baum's.
Huh. I was doing
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
There is nothing necessary to hold up in court. The
trustees/trustworthy owners are taking the action. The fact that
their decision was based upon the ramblings of an AGI is entirely
irrelevant as far as the legal system is concerned.
What distinguishes this venture from the hundreds of other ones that
are frankly indistinguishable from yours? What is that killer thing that you
can convincingly demonstrate you have that no one else can? Without
that, your chances are poor on many different levels.
I'm trying to find
Thanks. But Schank has fallen into disuse, no? The ideas re script algorithms
just don't work, do they? And what I was highlighting was one possible reason
- those primitives are infinitely open-ended and can be, and are, repeatedly
being used in new ways. That supposedly minimally ambiguous
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a system can get arbitrarily complex without being conscious --
consciousness is a specific kind of model-based, summarizing,
self-monitoring
architecture.
Yes. That is a good clarification of what I meant rather than what I said.
That sounds like a contributor lawsuit waiting to happen outside of the
contributors contractually agreeing to have zero rights, and who would
want to sign such a contract?
And there's the rub. We've gotten into a situation where it's almost
literally impossible to honestly set up a
I think you are mis-interpreting me. I do *not* subscribe to the semantic
primitives (I probably didn't put it clearly though). Just trying to answer
your question re the sufficiency of 10 or so verbs. However, if you are
considering any reduced vocabulary then you should be familiar with the
list readers should check old discredited approaches first
Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of
research petered out?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
Have we not decided that impossible yet?
You can delay it, but not prevent it, once it hits the mainstream.
The best way to delay it, is to have the smallest group, with the tightest
restrictions in place, which goes against the grain of having a large mostly
open groups that have been put
Isn't it indisputable that agency is necessarily on behalf of some
perceived entity (a self) and that assessment of the morality of any
decision is always only relative to a subjective model of rightness?
I'm not sure that I should dive into this but I'm not the brightest
sometimes . . . . :-)
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53231/
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
I wouldnt say discredited, though he has went off to study education more
instead of AI now.
Good article on Conceptual Reasoning
http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/concept.shtml
His SAM project was very interesting with Scripts back in '75, but for a very
limited domain.
My project has the
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't it indisputable that agency is necessarily on behalf of some
perceived entity (a self) and that assessment of the morality of any
decision is always only relative to a subjective model of rightness?
I'm not sure that I should dive into
Have we not decided that impossible yet?
You can delay it, but not prevent it, once it hits the mainstream.
No, because my question deals with *before* it hits the mainstream.
The best way to delay it, is to have the smallest group, with the tightest
restrictions in place, which goes
There is a tendency among people to grant human rights to entities that are
more human-like, more like yourself. For example, if you give an animal a
name, it is likely to get better treatment. (We name dogs and cats, but not
cows or pigs). Among humans, those who speak the same language and
I do think its a misuse of agency to ascribe moral agency to what is
effectively only a tool. Even a human, operating under duress, i.e.
as a tool for another, should be considered as having diminished or no
moral agency, in my opinion.
So, effectively, it sounds like agency requires both
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 02:47:27 pm Mark Waser wrote:
list readers should check old discredited approaches first
Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of
research petered out?
I think Schank's stuff was quite sound at its level but was abstract enough
(at
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach
discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer
than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought
for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI
:-)A lot of the reason why I was asking is because I'm effectively
somewhat (how's that for a pair of conditionals? :-) relying on Schank's
approach not having any showstoppers that I'm not aware of -- so if anyone
else is aware of any surprise show-stopper's in his work, I'd love to have
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think its a misuse of agency to ascribe moral agency to what is
effectively only a tool. Even a human, operating under duress, i.e.
as a tool for another, should be considered as having diminished or no
moral agency, in my opinion.
So,
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would not claim that agency requires consciousness; it is necessary
only that an agent acts on its environment so as to minimize the
difference between the external environment and its internal model of
the preferred environment
OK.
Moral
A more accurate understanding of morality or decision-making seen as
right, and extensible beyond the EEA to our increasingly complex
world might be something like the following:
Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact
principles assessed as promoting an
Mark Waser writes:
BTW, with this definition of morality, I would argue that it is a very rare
human that makes moral decisions any appreciable percent of the time
Just a gentle suggestion: If you're planning to unveil a major AGI initiative
next month, focus on that at the moment.
Just a gentle suggestion: If you're planning to unveil a major AGI
initiative next month, focus on that at the moment.
I think that morality (aka Friendliness) is directly on-topic for *any* AGI
initiative; however, it's actually even more apropos for the approach that I'm
taking.
As I
Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact
principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly
coherent values over increasing scope of consequences.
Or another question . . . . if I'm analyzing an action based upon the criteria
specified above
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Decisions are seen as increasingly moral to the extent that they enact
principles assessed as promoting an increasing context of increasingly
coherent values over increasing scope of consequences.
Or another question . . . . if I'm analyzing
Mark Waser writes:
I think that morality (aka Friendliness) is directly on-topic for *any* AGI
initiative; however, it's actually even more apropos for the approach that
I'm taking.
A very important part of what I'm proposing is attempting to deal with the
fact that no two humans agree
On 6/2/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And many scientists refer to potential energy surfaces and the like. There's a
core of enormous representational capability with quite a few well-developed
intellectual tools.
Another Grand Unification theory: Estimation of Distribution
60 matches
Mail list logo
