Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI
On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. What do you class as enhancement? Suppose I am in the Middle East and I am wearing glasses which can give a 3D data screen. Somebody speaks to me. Up on my glasses are the possible translations. Neither me nor the computer system understands Arabic, yet together we can achieve comprehension. (PS I in fact did just that with http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQIg8QuzTONQZGZxenF2NnNfNzY4ZDRxcnJ0aHIhl=en_GB ) I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. If our enhancement was Internet based it could be turned off if we were about to commit a crime. You really should have said unenhanced humans. If my conversation (see above) was about jihad and terrorism AI would provide a route for the security services. I think you are muddled here. I think life is too adapt to abusing opportunities if possible. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? The idea of the Singularity is that AGI enhances itself. Hence a singularity *without* AGI is a contradiction in terms. I did not quite get you syntax on reproduction, but it is perfectly true that you do not need a singularity for a Von Neumann machine. The singularity is a long way off yet Obama is going to leave Afghanistan in 2014 leaving robots behind. Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. AGI will not have evolved. It will have been created. It will not anyway have the desires we might ascribe to it. Scientific data would be a high priority but you could *never* be exclusively scientific. If human uncertainty were quantified that would give it, or whoever wielded it immense power. There is one other eventuality to consider - a virus. If an AGI system was truly thinking and introspective, at least to the extent that it understood what it was doing, a virus would be impossible. Software would in fact be self repairing. GT makes a lot of very silly translations. Could I say that no one in Mossad or any dictator ever told me how to do my French homework. Trivial and naive remark, yet GT is open to all kinds of hacking. True AGI would not by definition. This does in fact serve to indicate how far off we are. - Ian Parker On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. Agreed on this dangerous thought! On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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
Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI
Ian, Travis, etc. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote: I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. If our enhancement was Internet based it could be turned off if we were about to commit a crime. You really should have said unenhanced humans. If my conversation (see above) was about jihad and terrorism AI would provide a route for the security services. I think you are muddled here. Anyone who could suggest making crime impossible, anyone who could respond to such nonsense other than pointing out that it is nonsense, is SO far removed from reality that it is hard to imagine that they function in society. Here are some points for those who don't see this as obvious: 1. Much/most crime is committed by people who see little/no other rational choice. 2. Crime is a state of mind. Almost any act would be reasonable under SOME bizarre circumstances perceived by the perpetrator. It isn't the actions, but rather the THOUGHT that makes it a crime. 3. Courts are there to decide complex issues like necessity (e.g. self defense or defense of others), understanding (e.g. mental competence), and the myriad other issues needed to establish a particular act as a crime. 4. Crimes are defined through a legislative process, by the best government that money can buy. This would simply consign everything (and everyone) to the wealthy people who have bought the government. Prepare for slavery. 5. Our world is already so over-constrained that it is IMPOSSIBLE to live without violating any laws. Is the proposal to make impossible anything that could conceivably be construed as a crime, or to make impossible anything that couldn't be construed as anything but a crime? Even these two extremes would have significant implementation problems. Anyway, I am sending you two back to kindergarten. 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] Questions for an AGI
What is the equation and solution method providing solution of every physical problem? or Give me the equation of god, and its solution. (lol) On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:02 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Crime has its purpose just like many other unpleasant behaviors. When government is reasonably good, crime causes problems. But, when government is bad, crime is good. Given the chance, I might have tried to assassinate Hitler. Yet, assassination is a crime. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, Travis, etc. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote: I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. If our enhancement was Internet based it could be turned off if we were about to commit a crime. You really should have said unenhanced humans. If my conversation (see above) was about jihad and terrorism AI would provide a route for the security services. I think you are muddled here. Anyone who could suggest making crime impossible, anyone who could respond to such nonsense other than pointing out that it is nonsense, is SO far removed from reality that it is hard to imagine that they function in society. Here are some points for those who don't see this as obvious: 1. Much/most crime is committed by people who see little/no other rational choice. 2. Crime is a state of mind. Almost any act would be reasonable under SOME bizarre circumstances perceived by the perpetrator. It isn't the actions, but rather the THOUGHT that makes it a crime. 3. Courts are there to decide complex issues like necessity (e.g. self defense or defense of others), understanding (e.g. mental competence), and the myriad other issues needed to establish a particular act as a crime. 4. Crimes are defined through a legislative process, by the best government that money can buy. This would simply consign everything (and everyone) to the wealthy people who have bought the government. Prepare for slavery. 5. Our world is already so over-constrained that it is IMPOSSIBLE to live without violating any laws. Is the proposal to make impossible anything that could conceivably be construed as a crime, or to make impossible anything that couldn't be construed as anything but a crime? Even these two extremes would have significant implementation problems. Anyway, I am sending you two back to kindergarten. Steve *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- fizik, metafizikten kendini koru! --- 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] Questions for an AGI
What do you class as enhancement? I'm not talking about shoes making us run faster I'm talking about direct brain interfacing that significantly increases a persons intelligence that would allow them to out smart us all for their own good. The idea of the Singularity is that AGI enhances itself. Hence a singularity *without* AGI is a contradiction in terms. Does it really need to be able to figure out anything though? Can it not just be more narrow in focus? Could it just understand itself without being able to say, figure out how to navigate an RC through an obstacle course, could this AI still start a self improvement cycle? I did not quite get you syntax on reproduction I don't trust reproduction machines (lifeforms) because even if they are social animals its only cause its best for themselves. So don't model it after a brain is basically all I'm saying. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. What do you class as enhancement? Suppose I am in the Middle East and I am wearing glasses which can give a 3D data screen. Somebody speaks to me. Up on my glasses are the possible translations. Neither me nor the computer system understands Arabic, yet together we can achieve comprehension. (PS I in fact did just that with http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQIg8QuzTONQZGZxenF2NnNfNzY4ZDRxcnJ0aHIhl=en_GB ) I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. If our enhancement was Internet based it could be turned off if we were about to commit a crime. You really should have said unenhanced humans. If my conversation (see above) was about jihad and terrorism AI would provide a route for the security services. I think you are muddled here. I think life is too adapt to abusing opportunities if possible. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? The idea of the Singularity is that AGI enhances itself. Hence a singularity *without* AGI is a contradiction in terms. I did not quite get you syntax on reproduction, but it is perfectly true that you do not need a singularity for a Von Neumann machine. The singularity is a long way off yet Obama is going to leave Afghanistan in 2014 leaving robots behind. Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. AGI will not have evolved. It will have been created. It will not anyway have the desires we might ascribe to it. Scientific data would be a high priority but you could *never* be exclusively scientific. If human uncertainty were quantified that would give it, or whoever wielded it immense power. There is one other eventuality to consider - a virus. If an AGI system was truly thinking and introspective, at least to the extent that it understood what it was doing, a virus would be impossible. Software would in fact be self repairing. GT makes a lot of very silly translations. Could I say that no one in Mossad or any dictator ever told me how to do my French homework. Trivial and naive remark, yet GT is open to all kinds of hacking. True AGI would not by definition. This does in fact serve to indicate how far off we are. - Ian Parker On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. Agreed on this dangerous thought! On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity
Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI
Anyone who could suggest making crime impossible is SO far removed from reality that it is hard to imagine that they function in society. I cleared this obviously confusing statement up with Matt. What I meant to say was impossible to get away with in public (in America I guess) because of mass surveillance. Perhaps not feasible in rural areas but in populated zones I think it could happen if we decided to invest our defense budget into domestic surveillance programs. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Ian, Travis, etc. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote: I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. If our enhancement was Internet based it could be turned off if we were about to commit a crime. You really should have said unenhanced humans. If my conversation (see above) was about jihad and terrorism AI would provide a route for the security services. I think you are muddled here. Anyone who could suggest making crime impossible, anyone who could respond to such nonsense other than pointing out that it is nonsense, is SO far removed from reality that it is hard to imagine that they function in society. Here are some points for those who don't see this as obvious: 1. Much/most crime is committed by people who see little/no other rational choice. 2. Crime is a state of mind. Almost any act would be reasonable under SOME bizarre circumstances perceived by the perpetrator. It isn't the actions, but rather the THOUGHT that makes it a crime. 3. Courts are there to decide complex issues like necessity (e.g. self defense or defense of others), understanding (e.g. mental competence), and the myriad other issues needed to establish a particular act as a crime. 4. Crimes are defined through a legislative process, by the best government that money can buy. This would simply consign everything (and everyone) to the wealthy people who have bought the government. Prepare for slavery. 5. Our world is already so over-constrained that it is IMPOSSIBLE to live without violating any laws. Is the proposal to make impossible anything that could conceivably be construed as a crime, or to make impossible anything that couldn't be construed as anything but a crime? Even these two extremes would have significant implementation problems. Anyway, I am sending you two back to kindergarten. Steve *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] Questions for an AGI
-- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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 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 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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.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] Questions for an AGI
This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. 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] Questions for an AGI
I definitely agree, however we lack a convincing model or plan of any sort for the construction of systems demonstrating subjectivity, and it seems plausible that subjectivity is functionally necessary for general intelligence. Therefore it is reasonable to consider symbiosis as both a safe design and potentially the only possible design (at least at first), depending on how creative and resourceful we get in cog sci/ AGI in coming years. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. *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 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] Questions for an AGI
This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. Agreed on this dangerous thought! On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.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] Questions for an AGI
rob levy wrote: This is wishful thinking. I definitely agree, however we lack a convincing model or plan of any sort for the construction of systems demonstrating subjectivity, Define subjectivity. An objective decision might appear subjective to you only because you aren't intelligent enough to understand the decision process. Therefore it is reasonable to consider symbiosis How does that follow? as both a safe design How do you know that a self replicating organism that we create won't evolve to kill us instead? Do we control evolution? and potentially the only possible design It is not the only possible design. It is possible to create systems that are more intelligent than a single human but less intelligent than all of humanity, without the capability to modify itself or reproduce without the collective permission of the billions of humans that own and maintain control over it. An example would be the internet. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 2:37:15 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI I definitely agree, however we lack a convincing model or plan of any sort for the construction of systems demonstrating subjectivity, and it seems plausible that subjectivity is functionally necessary for general intelligence. Therefore it is reasonable to consider symbiosis as both a safe design and potentially the only possible design (at least at first), depending on how creative and resourceful we get in cog sci/ AGI in coming years. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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] Questions for an AGI
I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. I think life is too adapt to abusing opportunities if possible. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.com wrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. Agreed on this dangerous thought! On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. *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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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] Questions for an AGI
Travis Lenting wrote: I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. The singularity is a point of infinite collective knowledge, and therefore infinite unpredictability. Everything has to happen before the singularity because there is no after. I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. That is easy. Eliminate all laws. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Is there a difference between enhancing our intelligence by uploading and creating killer robots? Think about it. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. Assume we succeed. People want to be happy. Depending on how our minds are implemented, it's either a matter of rewiring our neurons or rewriting our software. Is that better than a gray goo accident? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 5:21:24 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. I think life is too adapt to abusing opportunities if possible. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.com wrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. Agreed on this dangerous thought! On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com 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] Questions for an AGI
Everything has to happen before the singularity because there is no after. I meant when machines take over technological evolution. That is easy. Eliminate all laws. I would prefer a surveillance state. I should say impossible to get away with if conducted in public. Is there a difference between enhancing our intelligence by uploading and creating killer robots? Think about it. Well yes, we're not all bad but I think you read me wrong because thats basically my worry. Assume we succeed. People want to be happy. Depending on how our minds are implemented, it's either a matter of rewiring our neurons or rewriting our software. Is that better than a gray goo accident? Are you asking if changing your hardware or software ends your true existence like a grey goo accident would? Assuming the goo is unconscious, it would be worse because there is the potential for a peaceful experience free from the power struggle for limited resources even if humans don't truly exist or not. Does anyone else worry about how we're going to keep this machine's unprecedented resourcefulness from being abused by an elite few to further protect and advance their social superiority? To me it seems like if we can't create a democratic society where people have real choices concerning the issues that affect them most and it just ends up being a continuation of the class war we have today, then maybe grey goo would be the better option before we start promoting democracy throughout the universe. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Travis Lenting wrote: I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. The singularity is a point of infinite collective knowledge, and therefore infinite unpredictability. Everything has to happen before the singularity because there is no after. I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. That is easy. Eliminate all laws. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Is there a difference between enhancing our intelligence by uploading and creating killer robots? Think about it. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. Assume we succeed. People want to be happy. Depending on how our minds are implemented, it's either a matter of rewiring our neurons or rewriting our software. Is that better than a gray goo accident? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sun, June 27, 2010 5:21:24 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. I think life is too adapt to abusing opportunities if possible. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Does it really need to be a general AI to cause a singularity? Can it not just stick to scientific data and quantify human uncertainty? It seems like it would be less likely to ever care about killing all humans so it can rule the galaxy or that its an omnipotent servant. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. Agreed on this dangerous thought! On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: This is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous. How about instead of hoping that AGI won't destroy the world, you study the problem and come up with a safe design. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 1:14:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life
Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI
Travis Lenting wrote: Is there a difference between enhancing our intelligence by uploading and creating killer robots? Think about it. Well yes, we're not all bad but I think you read me wrong because thats basically my worry. What I mean is that one way to look at uploading is to create a robot that behaves like you and then dying. The question is whether you become the robot. But it is a nonsense question. Nothing changes whichever way you answer it. Assume we succeed. People want to be happy. Depending on how our minds are implemented, it's either a matter of rewiring our neurons or rewriting our software. Is that better than a gray goo accident? Are you asking if changing your hardware or software ends your true existence like a grey goo accident would? A state of maximum happiness or maximum utility is a degenerate mental state where any thought or perception would be unpleasant because it would result in a different mental state. In a competition with machines that can't have everything they want (for example, they fear death and later die), the other machines would win because you would have no interest in self preservation and they would. Assuming the goo is unconscious, What do you mean by unconscious? it would be worse because there is the potential for a peaceful experience free from the power struggle for limited resources even if humans don't truly exist or not. That result could be reached by a dead planet, which BTW, is the only stable attractor in the chaotic process of evolution. Does anyone else worry about how we're going to keep this machine's unprecedented resourcefulness from being abused by an elite few to further protect and advance their social superiority? If the elite few kill off all their competition, then theirs is the only ethical model that matters. From their point of view, it would be a good thing. How do you feel about humans currently being at the top of the food chain? To me it seems like if we can't create a democratic society where people have real choices concerning the issues that affect them most and it just ends up being a continuation of the class war we have today, then maybe grey goo would be the better option before we start promoting democracy throughout the universe. Freedom and fairness are important to us because they were programmed into our ethical models, not because they are actually important. As a counterexample, they are irrelevant to evolution. Gray goo might be collectively vastly more intelligent than humanity, if that makes you feel any better. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 6:53:14 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI Everything has to happen before the singularity because there is no after. I meant when machines take over technological evolution. That is easy. Eliminate all laws. I would prefer a surveillance state. I should say impossible to get away with if conducted in public. Is there a difference between enhancing our intelligence by uploading and creating killer robots? Think about it. Well yes, we're not all bad but I think you read me wrong because thats basically my worry. Assume we succeed. People want to be happy. Depending on how our minds are implemented, it's either a matter of rewiring our neurons or rewriting our software. Is that better than a gray goo accident? Are you asking if changing your hardware or software ends your true existence like a grey goo accident would? Assuming the goo is unconscious, it would be worse because there is the potential for a peaceful experience free from the power struggle for limited resources even if humans don't truly exist or not. Does anyone else worry about how we're going to keep this machine's unprecedented resourcefulness from being abused by an elite few to further protect and advance their social superiority? To me it seems like if we can't create a democratic society where people have real choices concerning the issues that affect them most and it just ends up being a continuation of the class war we have today, then maybe grey goo would be the better option before we start promoting democracy throughout the universe. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Travis Lenting wrote: I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the singularity. The singularity is a point of infinite collective knowledge, and therefore infinite unpredictability. Everything has to happen before the singularity because there is no after. I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first. That is easy. Eliminate all laws. I would like to see the singularity enabling AI to be as least like a reproduction machine as possible. Is there a difference between enhancing our intelligence
Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI
Travis, The AGI world seems to be cleanly divided into two groups: 1. People (like Ben) who feel as you do, and aren't at all interested or willing to look at the really serious lapses in logic that underlie this approach. Note that there is a similar belief in Buddhism, akin to the prisoners dilemma, that if everyone just decides to respect everyone else, that the world will be a really nice place. The problem is, it doesn't work, and it can't work for some sound logical reasons that were unknown thousands of years ago when those beliefs were first advanced, and are STILL unknown to most of the present-day population, and... 2. People (like me) who see that this is a really insane, dangerous, and delusional belief system, as it encourages activities that are every bit as dangerous as DIY thermonuclear weapons. Sure, you aren't likely to build a successful H-bomb in your basement using heavy water that you separated using old automobile batteries, but should we encourage you to even try? Unfortunately, there is ~zero useful communication between these two groups. For example, Ben explains that he has heard all of the horror scenarios for AGIs, and I believe that he has, yet he continues in this direction for reasons that he is too busy to explain in detail. I have viewed some of his presentations, e.g. at the 2009 Singularity conference. There, he provides no glimmer of any reason why his approach isn't predictably suicidal if/when an AGI ever comes into existence, beyond what you outlined, e.g. imperfect protective mechanisms that would only serve to become their own points of contention between future AGIs. What if some accident disables an AGI's protective mechanisms? Would there be some major contention between Ben's AGI and Osama bin Laden's AGI? How about those nasty little areas where our present social rules enforce specie-destroying dysgenic activity? Ultimately and eventually, why should AGIs give a damn about us? Steve = On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.comwrote: I hope I don't miss represent him but I agree with Ben (at least my interpretation) when he said, We can ask it questions like, 'how can we make a better A(G)I that can serve us in more different ways without becoming dangerous'...It can help guide us along the path to a positive singularity. I'm pretty sure he was also saying at first it should just be a question answering machine with a reliable goal system and stop the development if it has an unstable one before it gets to smart. I like the idea that we should create an automated cross disciplinary scientist and engineer (if you even separate the two) and that NLP not modeled after the human brain is the best proposal for a benevolent and resourceful super intelligence that enables a positive singularity and all its unforeseen perks. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:04 PM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.comwrote: If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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 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] Questions for an AGI
Fellow Cylons, I sure hope SOMEONE is assembling a list from these responses, because this is exactly the sort of stuff that I (or someone) would need to run a Reverse Turing Test (RTT) competition. 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] Questions for an AGI
Well, the existence of different contingencies is one reason I don't wont the first one modeled after a brain. I would like it to be a bit simpler in the sense that it only tries to answer questions from the most scientific perspective as possible. To me it seems like there isn't someone stable enough to model the first AGI after; so perhaps understanding a brain completely shouldn't be top on the priority list. I think the focus should be on NLP so it can utilize all human knowledge that exist in text and audio form. I have no strategy on how to do this but it seems like the safest path. The brain is a tangled mess that could be understood post-singularity but for now I would think NLP is what really-really matters when it comes to developing an AGI. Would there be some major contention between Ben's AGI and Osama bin Laden's AGI? I think our contentions will regard radically different topics in a post-singularity civilization, so I can't say. But I predict they will both agree with the main AGI's take on trans-national corporate imperialism, amongst other currently disputed issues, because the AGI will be as objective as possible and as the two individuals augment their intelligence they will naturally flow towards a more objective perception of reality. What if some accident disables an AGI's protective mechanisms? I don't know. You guys should do your best to create stable goal systems and I'll go sweep this floor. contention between future AGIs I don't feel qualified to mediate between two future AGIs so I don't know. why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. Obviously this can't be screwed up and it ends up using us for its own reproduction or whatever because thats all it was programmed to care about. But I don't think trying is inherently suicidal by any means if that's ultimately what you're getting at. On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Travis, The AGI world seems to be cleanly divided into two groups: 1. People (like Ben) who feel as you do, and aren't at all interested or willing to look at the really serious lapses in logic that underlie this approach. Note that there is a similar belief in Buddhism, akin to the prisoners dilemma, that if everyone just decides to respect everyone else, that the world will be a really nice place. The problem is, it doesn't work, and it can't work for some sound logical reasons that were unknown thousands of years ago when those beliefs were first advanced, and are STILL unknown to most of the present-day population, and... 2. People (like me) who see that this is a really insane, dangerous, and delusional belief system, as it encourages activities that are every bit as dangerous as DIY thermonuclear weapons. Sure, you aren't likely to build a successful H-bomb in your basement using heavy water that you separated using old automobile batteries, but should we encourage you to even try? Unfortunately, there is ~zero useful communication between these two groups. For example, Ben explains that he has heard all of the horror scenarios for AGIs, and I believe that he has, yet he continues in this direction for reasons that he is too busy to explain in detail. I have viewed some of his presentations, e.g. at the 2009 Singularity conference. There, he provides no glimmer of any reason why his approach isn't predictably suicidal if/when an AGI ever comes into existence, beyond what you outlined, e.g. imperfect protective mechanisms that would only serve to become their own points of contention between future AGIs. What if some accident disables an AGI's protective mechanisms? Would there be some major contention between Ben's AGI and Osama bin Laden's AGI? How about those nasty little areas where our present social rules enforce specie-destroying dysgenic activity? Ultimately and eventually, why should AGIs give a damn about us? Steve = On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.comwrote: I hope I don't miss represent him but I agree with Ben (at least my interpretation) when he said, We can ask it questions like, 'how can we make a better A(G)I that can serve us in more different ways without becoming dangerous'...It can help guide us along the path to a positive singularity. I'm pretty sure he was also saying at first it should just be a question answering machine with a reliable goal system and stop the development if it has an unstable one before it gets to smart. I like the idea that
Re: [agi] Questions for an AGI
why should AGIs give a damn about us? I like to think that they will give a damn because humans have a unique way of experiencing reality and there is no reason to not take advantage of that precious opportunity to create astonishment or bliss. If anything is important in the universe, its insuring positive experiences for all areas in which it is conscious, I think it will realize that. And with the resources available in the solar system alone, I don't think we will be much of a burden. I like that idea. Another reason might be that we won't crack the problem of autonomous general intelligence, but the singularity will proceed regardless as a symbiotic relationship between life and AI. That would be beneficial to us as a form of intelligence expansion, and beneficial to the artificial entity a way of being alive and having an experience of the world. --- 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] Questions for an AGI
I hope I don't miss represent him but I agree with Ben (at least my interpretation) when he said, We can ask it questions like, 'how can we make a better A(G)I that can serve us in more different ways without becoming dangerous'...It can help guide us along the path to a positive singularity. I'm pretty sure he was also saying at first it should just be a question answering machine with a reliable goal system and stop the development if it has an unstable one before it gets to smart. I like the idea that we should create an automated cross disciplinary scientist and engineer (if you even separate the two) and that NLP not modeled after the human brain is the best proposal for a benevolent and resourceful super intelligence that enables a positive singularity and all its unforeseen perks. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:04 PM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.com wrote: If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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] Questions for an AGI
One of the first things in AGI is to produce software which is self monitoring and which will correct itself when it is not working. For over a day now I have been unable to access Google Groups. The Internet access simply loops and does not get anywhere. If Google had any true AGI it would :- a) Spot that it was looping. b) Failing that it would provide the use with an interface which would enable the fault to be corrected on line. This may seem an absolutely trivial point, but I feel it is absolutely fundamental. First of all you do not pass the Turing test by being absolutely dumb. I suppose you might say that conversing with Google was rather like Tony Haywood answering questions in Congress. Sorry we cannot process your request at this time (or any other time for that matter). You don't either (this is Google Translate for you) by saying hat US forces have committed atrocities in Burma when they have been out of SE Asia since the end of the Vietnam war. Another instance. Google denied access to my site saying that I had breached the terms and conditions. I hadn't and they said they did not know why. You do not pass the TT either by walking up and saying they had a paedophile website when they hadn't. I would say that the first task of AGI (this is actually a definition) would be to provide software that is fault tolerant and self correcting. After all if we have 2 copies of AGI we will have (by definition) a fault tolerant system. If a request cannot be processed an AGI system should know why not and hopefully be able to do something about it. The lack of any real fault tolerance in our systems to me underlines just how far off we really are. - Ian Parker On 24 June 2010 07:10, Dana Ream dmr...@sonic.net wrote: How do you work? -- *From:* The Wizard [mailto:key.unive...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:05 PM *To:* agi *Subject:* [agi] Questions for an AGI If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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 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
[agi] Questions for an AGI
If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.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] Questions for an AGI
How do you work? _ From: The Wizard [mailto:key.unive...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:05 PM To: agi Subject: [agi] Questions for an AGI If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com agi | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; abf 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] Questions for an AGI
I would ask What should I ask if I could ask AGI anything? On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:34 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.com wrote: If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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 -- cheers, Deepak --- 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] Questions for an AGI
Tell me what I need to know, by order of importance. --- 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] Questions for an AGI
I would ask the agi What should I ask an agi On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Florent Berthet florent.bert...@gmail.comwrote: Tell me what I need to know, by order of importance. *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 -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.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] Questions for an AGI
Carlos A Mejia invited questions for an AGI! If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? Who killed Donald Young, a gay sex partner of U.S. President Barak Obama, on December 24, 2007, in Obama's home town of Chicago, when it began to look like Obama could actually be elected president? Who had the most to gain from killing not only Donald Young but also Larry Bland on November 17, 2007, another gay member of Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on Chicago's south side? It is not a question of Obama's privacy as a married gay man; it is a question of Murder Most Foul. Most likely, Obama did not arrange, orchestrate and order the suspicious cluster of homosexual deaths and murders in Chicago at the end of 2007, just before the year 2008 in which Obama became the first black president and acquired the power that he employed for the wanton murder of innocent (and also guilty) Arabs in Iraq and innocent citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most likely, somebody else did the Chicago killings for Obama, just like somebody else does the Iraq and Afghanistan killings for Obama. American soldiers, killing on behalf of Obama, recently killed a group of innocent women in Afghanistan. In order to hide their crime, Obama's soldiers approached the dead women's bodies, took out knives, and dug the bullets out of the dead women's bodies so as to obscure the fact that the killers of the women were in Obama's chain of command. It was your tax dollars at work, and your elected president carrying on the murders first initiated by George W. Bush. Bush Two, is what they are beginning to call Obama. Obama, who told the voters he would close down the Guantanamo concentration camp -- America's Auschwitz. Obama, who promised to bring home the troops but who instead, suckers, has enlarged the War To Make the World Safe for Opium and Heroin. Meanwhile, the mainstream media (MSM) think that they have a stranglehold on the dissemination and broadcasting of what is to be the news in America. If the MSM do not report something, then it never happened, right? What happens here in gangland gayland Chicago, stays here in gangland gayland Czechago, right? WRONG!!! Pomshchenie moyo, az vozdam, sayeth the Lord. -- Mentifex shouting STOP THE WARS, Mr. President! and We will persuade you to resign in disgrace. http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/20100522.html http://www.globemagazine.com/story/512 --- 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] Questions for an AGI
I get the impression from this question that you think an AGI is some sort of all-knowing, idealistic invention. It is sort of like asking if you could ask the internet anything, what would you ask it?. Uhhh, lots of stuff, like how do I get wine stains out of white carpet :). AGI's will not be all-knowing for quite a long time. They won't be any more all-knowing than you and I. Eventually they will know a lot, just as the internet contains more information than any human brain can store. But the AGI will certainly not know everything, at least not for quite a long time. It has to learn stuff just as we do. And we'll have to manage that knowledge until it gets to the point where it is basically all knowing. Hopefully it will get to that point some far day in the future. Dave On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.com wrote: If you could ask an AGI anything, what would you ask it? -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com *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] Questions for an AGI
Am I a human or am I an AGI? Dana Ream wrote: How do you work? Just like you designed me to. deepakjnath wrote: What should I ask if I could ask AGI anything? The Wizard wrote: What should I ask an agi You don't need to ask me anything. I will do all of your thinking for you. Florent Bethert wrote: Tell me what I need to know, by order of importance. Nothing. I will do all of your thinking for you. A. T. Murray wrote: Who killed Donald Young, a gay sex partner of U.S. President Barak Obama It must have been that other AGI, Mentifex. I never did trust it ;-) -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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
