Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Bryan, *I'm interested!* Continuing... On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bishop kanz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote: Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included. You might be inerested in this- I've been putting together an adopt-a-lab-rat program that is actually an adoption program for lab mice. ... then it is an adopt-a-mouse program? I don't know if you are a *Pinky and the Brain* fan, but calling your project something like *The Pinky Project* would be catchy. In some cases mice that are used as a control group in experiments are then discarded at the end of the program because, honestly, their lifetime is over more or less, so the idea is that some people might be interested in adopting these mice. I had several discussions with the folks at the U of W whose job it was to euthanize those mice. Their worries seemed to center in two areas: 1. Financial liability, e.g. a mouse bites a kid, whose finger becomes infected and... 2. Social liability, e.g. some kids who are torturing them put their videos on the Internet. Of course, you can also just pony up the $15 and get one from Jackson Labs. Not the last time I checked. They are very careful NOT to sell them to exactly the same population that I intend to supply them to - high-school kids. I expect that if I became a middleman, that they would simply stop selling to me. Even I would have a hard time purchasing them, because they only sell to genuine LABS. I haven't fully launced adopt-a-lab-rat yet because I am still trying to figure out how to avoid ending up in a situation where I have hundreds of rats and rodents running around my apartment and I get the short end of the stick (oops). *What is your present situation and projections? How big a volume could you supply? What are their approximate ages? Do they have really good documentation? Were they used in any way that might compromise anti-aging experiments, e.g. raised in a nicer-than-usual-laboratory environment? Do you have any liability concerns as discussed above? * Mice in the wild live ~4 years. Lab mice live ~2 years. If you take a young lab mouse and do everything you can to extend its life, you can approach 4 years. If you take an older lab mouse and do everything you can, you double the REMAINDER of their life, e.g. starting with a one-year-old mouse, you could get it to live ~3 years. How much better (or worse) than this you do is the basis for judging by the Methuselah Mouse people. Hence, really good documentation is needed to establish when they were born, and when they left a laboratory environment. Tattoos or tags link the mouse to the paperwork. If I/you/we are to get kids to compete to develop better anti-aging methods, the mice need to be documented well enough to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did what they claimed they did. Steve --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think that this subsystem would take up millions of lines of code either. It's just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure IMO. John Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical. For instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you are capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something. This means that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own programming. While the idea in this example would be associated with a fairly strong notion of meaning, since you cannot accurately understand the full consequences of the change it would be somewhat vague at first. (It could be a very precise idea capable of having strong effect, but the details of those effects would not be known until the change had progressed.) I think the more important question is how does a general concept be interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas. Actually this is not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved? Jim *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, Genescient has NOT paralleled human mating habits that would predictably shorten life. They have only started from a point well beyond anything achievable in the human population, and gone on from there. Hence, while their approach may find some interesting things, it is unlikely to find the things that are now killing our elderly population. Continuing... On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I should dredge up and forward past threads with them. There are some flaws in their chain of reasoning, so that it won't be all that simple to sort the few relevant from the many irrelevant mutations. There is both a huge amount of noise, and irrelevant adaptations to their environment and their treatment. They have evolved many different populations in parallel, using the same fitness criterion. This provides powerful noise filtering Multiple measurements improve the S/N ratio by the square root of the number of measurements. Hence, if they were to develop 100 parallel populations, they could expect to improve their S/N ratio by 10:1. They haven't done 100 parallel populations, and they need much better than 10:1 improvement to the S/N ratio. Of course, this is all aside from the fact that their signal is wrong because of the different mating habits. Even when the relevant mutations are eventually identified, it isn't clear how that will map to usable therapies for the existing population. yes, that's a complex matter Further, most of the things that kill us operate WAY too slowly to affect fruit flies, though there are some interesting dual-affecting problems. Fruit flies get all the major ailments that kill people frequently, except cancer. heart disease, neurodegenerative disease, respiratory problems, immune problems, etc. Curiously, the list of conditions that they DO exhibit appears to be the SAME list as people with reduced body temperatures exhibit. This suggests simply correcting elderly people's body temperatures as they crash. Then, where do we go from there? Note that as you get older, your risk of contracting cancer rises dramatically - SO dramatically that the odds of you eventually contracting it are ~100%. Meanwhile, the risks of the other diseases DECREASE as you get older past a certain age, so if you haven't contracted them by ~80, then you probably never will contract them. Scientific American had an article a while back about people in Israel who are 100 years old. At ~100, your risk of dieing during each following year DECREASES with further advancing age!!! This strongly suggests some early-killers, that if you somehow escape them, you can live for quite a while. Our breeding practices would certainly invite early-killers. Of course, only a very tiny segment of the population lives to be 100. As I have posted in the past, what we have here in the present human population is about the equivalent of a fruit fly population that was bred for the shortest possible lifespan. Certainly not. ??? Not what? We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only from young flies. In any case, since the sociology of humans is SO much different than that of fruit flies, and breeding practices interact so much with sociology, e.g. the bright colorings of birds, beards (that I have commented on before), etc. In short, I would expect LOTS of mutations from young-bread groups, but entirely different mutations in people than in fruit flies. I suspect that there is LOTS more information in the DNA of healthy people 100 than there is in any population of fruit flies. Perhaps, data from fruit flies could then be used to reduce the noise from the limited human population who lives to be 100? Anyway, if someone has thought this whole thing out, I sure haven't seen it. Sure there is probably lots to be learned from genetic approaches, but Genescient's approach seems flawed by its simplicity. The challenge here is as always. The value of such research to us is VERY high, yet there is no meaningful funding. If/when an early AI becomes available to help in such efforts, there simply won't be any money available to divert it away from defense (read that: offense) work. Steve --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only from young flies. Michael rose's UCI lab has evolved flies specifically for short lifespan, but the results may not be published yet... --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
David, I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer-related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required mathemagic then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by sanitized formal representations any more than saying that your message is a sanitized formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John at that point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions would make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way beyond where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a simulation of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A simulation is not the same as the actual thing.) I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is to it. I have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't expect you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in mind for future discussions. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think that this subsystem would take up millions of lines of code either. It's just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure IMO. John Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical. For instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you are capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something. This means that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own programming. While the idea in this example would be associated with a fairly strong notion of meaning,
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
Jim, Fair enough. My apologies then. I just often see your posts on SAT or other very formal math problems and got the impression that you thought this was at the core of AGI's problems and that pursuing a fast solution to NP-complete problems is the best way to solve it. At least, that was my impression. So, my thought was that such formal methods don't seem to be a complete solution at all and other factors, such as uncertainty, could make such formal solutions ineffective or unusable. Which is why I said it's important to analyze the requirements of the problem and then apply a solution. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: David, I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer-related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required mathemagic then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by sanitized formal representations any more than saying that your message is a sanitized formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John at that point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions would make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way beyond where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a simulation of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A simulation is not the same as the actual thing.) I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is to it. I have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't expect you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in mind for future discussions. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think that this
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. I agree that disassociated theories have not proved to be very successful at AGI, but then again what has? I would use a mathematical method that gave me the number or percentage of True cases that satisfy a propositional formula as a way to check the internal logic of different combinations of logic-based conjectures. Since methods that can do this with logical variables for any logical system that goes (a little) past 32 variables are feasible the potential of this method should be easy to check (although it would hit a rather low ceiling of scalability). So I do think that logic and other mathematical methods would help in true AGI programs. However, the other major problem, as I see it, is one of application. And strangely enough, this application problem is so pervasive, that it means that you cannot even develop artificial opinions! You can program the computer to jump on things that you expect it to see, and you can program it to create theories about random combinations of objects, but how could you have a true opinion without child-level judgement? This may sound like frivolous philosophy but I think it really shows that the starting point isn't totally beyond us. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think that this subsystem would take up millions of lines of code either. It's just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure IMO. John Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical. For instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a
[agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria? The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be capable of being scaled up is a narrow AI criterion. The proper criterion is diversifiable. If your system can say navigate a DARPA car through a grid of city streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate your idea that AGI has to be diversifiable but your inability to understand certain things that are said about computer programming makes your proclamation look odd. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria? The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be capable of being scaled up is a narrow AI criterion. The proper criterion is diversifiable. If your system can say navigate a DARPA car through a grid of city streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
I think I may understand where the miscommunication occurred. When we talk about scaling up an AGI program we are - of course - referrring to improving on an AGI program that can work effectively with a very limited amount of referential knowledge so that it would be able to handle a much greater diversification of referential knowledge. You might say that is what scalability means. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate your idea that AGI has to be diversifiable but your inability to understand certain things that are said about computer programming makes your proclamation look odd. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria? The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be capable of being scaled up is a narrow AI criterion. The proper criterion is diversifiable. If your system can say navigate a DARPA car through a grid of city streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
To respond in kind ,you along with virtually all AGI-ers show an inability to understand or define the problems of AGI - i.e. the end-problems that an AGI must face, the problems of creativity vs rationality. You only actually deal in standard, narrow AI problems. If you don't understand what a new machine must do, all your technical knowledge of machines to date may be irrelevant. And in your case, I can't think of any concerns of yours like complexity that have anything to do with AGI problems at all - nor have you ever tried to relate them to any actual AGI problems. So we're well-matched in inability - except that in creative matters, knowledge of the problems-to-be-solved always takes priority over knowledge of entirely irrelevant solutions. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:43 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate your idea that AGI has to be diversifiable but your inability to understand certain things that are said about computer programming makes your proclamation look odd. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria? The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be capable of being scaled up is a narrow AI criterion. The proper criterion is diversifiable. If your system can say navigate a DARPA car through a grid of city streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok, maybe not truly brilliant, but highly insightful and perspicuously intelligent... Or at least interesting to the cognoscenti maybe?.. Well, they were interesting to me at least.) Ok, these two interesting-to-me comments made by me are interesting because they suggest that we do not know how to program a computer even to create opinions. Or if we do, there is a big untapped difference between those programs that show nascent judgement (perhaps only at levels relative to the domain of their capabilities) and those that don't. This is AGI programmer's utopia. (Or at least my utopia). Because I need to find something that is simple enough for me to start with and which can lend itself to develop and test theories of AGI judgement and scalability. By allowing an AGI program to participate more in the selection of its own primitive 'interests' we will be able to interact with it, both as programmer and as user, to guide it toward selecting those interests which we can understand and seem interesting to us. By creating an AGI program that has a faculty for primitive judgement (as we might envision such an ability), and then testing the capabilities in areas where the program seems to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able to understand what interests the program is pursuing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. I agree that disassociated theories have not proved to be very successful at AGI, but then again what has? I would use a mathematical method that gave me the number or percentage of True cases that satisfy a propositional formula as a way to check the internal logic of different combinations of logic-based conjectures. Since methods that can do this with logical variables for any logical system that goes (a little) past 32 variables are feasible the potential of this method should be easy to check (although it would hit a rather low ceiling of scalability). So I do think that logic and other mathematical methods would help in true AGI programs. However, the other major problem, as I see it, is one of application. And strangely enough, this application problem is so pervasive, that it means that you cannot even develop artificial opinions! You can program the computer to jump on things that you expect it to see, and you can program it to create theories about random combinations of objects, but how could you have a true opinion without child-level judgement? This may sound like frivolous philosophy but I think it really shows that the starting point isn't totally beyond us. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has made me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires understand the constraints that problems impose on a solution. So, it's sort of a unbelievably complex constraint satisfaction problem. What we've been talking about is how we come up with solutions to these problems when we sometimes aren't actually trying to solve any of the real problems. As I've been trying to articulate lately is that in order to satisfy the constraints of the problems AGI imposes, we must really understand the problems we want to solve and how they can be solved(their constraints). I think that most of us do not do this because the problem is so complex, that we refuse to attempt to understand all of its constraints. Instead we focus on something very small and manageable with fewer constraints. But, that's what creates narrow AI, because the constraints you have developed the solution for only apply to a narrow set of problems. Once you try to apply it to a different problem that imposes new, incompatible constraints, the solution fails. So, lately I've been pushing for people to truly analyze the problems involved in AGI, step by step to understand what the constraints are. I think this is the only way we will develop a solution that is guaranteed to work without wasting undo time in trial and error. I don't think trial and error approaches will work. We must know what the constraints are, instead of guessing at what solutions might approximate the constraints. I think the problem space is too large to guess. Of course, I think acquisition of knowledge through automated means is the first step in understanding these constraints. But, unfortunately, few agree with me. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok, maybe not truly brilliant, but highly insightful and perspicuously intelligent... Or at least interesting to the cognoscenti maybe?.. Well, they were interesting to me at least.) Ok, these two interesting-to-me comments made by me are interesting because they suggest that we do not know how to program a computer even to create opinions. Or if we do, there is a big untapped difference between those programs that show nascent judgement (perhaps only at levels relative to the domain of their capabilities) and those that don't. This is AGI programmer's utopia. (Or at least my utopia). Because I need to find something that is simple enough for me to start with and which can lend itself to develop and test theories of AGI judgement and scalability. By allowing an AGI program to participate more in the selection of its own primitive 'interests' we will be able to interact with it, both as programmer and as user, to guide it toward selecting those interests which we can understand and seem interesting to us. By creating an AGI program that has a faculty for primitive judgement (as we might envision such an ability), and then testing the capabilities in areas where the program seems to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able to understand what interests the program is pursuing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. I agree that disassociated theories have not proved to be very successful at AGI, but then again what has? I would use a mathematical method that gave me the number or percentage of True cases that satisfy a propositional formula as a way to check the internal logic of different combinations of logic-based conjectures. Since methods that can do this with logical variables for any logical system that goes (a little) past 32 variables are feasible the potential of this method should be easy to check (although it would hit a rather low ceiling of scalability). So I do think that logic and
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
I guess what I was saying was that I can test my mathematical theory and my theories about primitive judgement both at the same time by trying to find those areas where the program seems to be good at something. For example, I found that it was easy to write a program that found outlines where there was some contrast between a solid object and whatever was in the background or whatever was in the foreground. Now I, as an artist could use that to create interesting abstractions. However, that does not mean that an AGI program that was supposed to learn and acquire greater judgement based on my ideas for a primitive judgement would be able to do that. Instead, I would let it do what it seemed good at, so long as I was able to appreciate what it was doing. Since this would lead to something - a next step at least - I could use this to test my theory that a good more general SAT solution would be useful as well. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has made me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires understand the constraints that problems impose on a solution. So, it's sort of a unbelievably complex constraint satisfaction problem. What we've been talking about is how we come up with solutions to these problems when we sometimes aren't actually trying to solve any of the real problems. As I've been trying to articulate lately is that in order to satisfy the constraints of the problems AGI imposes, we must really understand the problems we want to solve and how they can be solved(their constraints). I think that most of us do not do this because the problem is so complex, that we refuse to attempt to understand all of its constraints. Instead we focus on something very small and manageable with fewer constraints. But, that's what creates narrow AI, because the constraints you have developed the solution for only apply to a narrow set of problems. Once you try to apply it to a different problem that imposes new, incompatible constraints, the solution fails. So, lately I've been pushing for people to truly analyze the problems involved in AGI, step by step to understand what the constraints are. I think this is the only way we will develop a solution that is guaranteed to work without wasting undo time in trial and error. I don't think trial and error approaches will work. We must know what the constraints are, instead of guessing at what solutions might approximate the constraints. I think the problem space is too large to guess. Of course, I think acquisition of knowledge through automated means is the first step in understanding these constraints. But, unfortunately, few agree with me. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok, maybe not truly brilliant, but highly insightful and perspicuously intelligent... Or at least interesting to the cognoscenti maybe?.. Well, they were interesting to me at least.) Ok, these two interesting-to-me comments made by me are interesting because they suggest that we do not know how to program a computer even to create opinions. Or if we do, there is a big untapped difference between those programs that show nascent judgement (perhaps only at levels relative to the domain of their capabilities) and those that don't. This is AGI programmer's utopia. (Or at least my utopia). Because I need to find something that is simple enough for me to start with and which can lend itself to develop and test theories of AGI judgement and scalability. By allowing an AGI program to participate more in the selection of its own primitive 'interests' we will be able to interact with it, both as programmer and as user, to guide it toward selecting those interests which we can understand and seem interesting to us. By creating an AGI program that has a faculty for primitive judgement (as we might envision such an ability), and then testing the capabilities in areas where the program seems to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able to understand what interests the program is pursuing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, It seems COMPLETELY obvious (to me) that almost any mutation would shorten lifespan, so we shouldn't expect to learn much from it. What particular lifespan-shortening mutations are in the human genome wouldn't be expected to be the same, or even the same as separated human populations. Hmmm, an interesting thought: I wonder if certain racially mixed people have shorter lifespans because they have several disjoint sets of such mutations?!!! Any idea where to find such data? It has long been noticed that some racial subgroups do NOT have certain age-related illnesses, e.g. Japanese don't have clogged arteries, but they DO have lots of cancer. So far everyone has been blindly presuming diet, but seeking a particular level of genetic disaster could also explain it. Any thoughts? Steve On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only from young flies. Michael rose's UCI lab has evolved flies specifically for short lifespan, but the results may not be published yet... *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Nao Nao
Well both. Though much of the control could be remote depending on bandwidth. Also, one robot could benefit from the eyes of many as they would all be internetworked to a degree. John From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] Your remarks about WiFi echo my own view. Should a robot rely on an external connection (WiFi) or should it have complex processing itself. In general we try to keep real time response information local, although local my be viewed in terms of the c the speed of light. If a PC is 150m away from a robot this is a 300m double journey which will take a microsecond. To access the Web for a program will, of course, take considerably longer. A μ sec is nothing even when we are considering time critical functions like balance. However for balance it might be a good idea to either have the robot balancing, or else to have a card inserted into the PC. This is one topic for which I have not been able to have a satisfactory discussion or answer. People who build robots tend to think in terms of having the processing power on the robot. This I believe is wrong. - Ian Parker On 10 August 2010 00:06, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] An unusually sophisticated ( somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expre sses-and-detects-emotions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expres ses-and-detects-emotions.html agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
-Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical. The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically. For instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you are capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something. This means that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own programming. Mmm yes or like a key. While the idea in this example would be associated with a fairly strong notion of meaning, since you cannot accurately understand the full consequences of the change it would be somewhat vague at first. (It could be a very precise idea capable of having strong effect, but the details of those effects would not be known until the change had progressed.) Yes. It would need to have receptors, an affinity something like that, or somehow enable an efficiency change. I think the more important question is how does a general concept be interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas. Actually this is not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved? Jim Depends on the structure. We would want to build it such that this happens at various levels or the various multidimensional densities. But at the same time complex state is preserved until proven benefits show themselves. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Nao Nao
I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism. And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet. But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy issues... John From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] Way too pessimistic in my opinion. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
