On Tuesday 22 April 2008 01:22:14 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
wonderfully predictable orbits.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13757-solar-system-could-go-haywire-before-the-sun-dies.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
How
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 01:22:14 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
wonderfully predictable orbits.
Thank you! This feeds back into the feedback discussion, in a way, at a high
level. There's a significant difference between research programming and
production programming. The production programmer is building something which
if (nominally) understood and planned ahead of time. The
an behavior.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:04 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H I detect a parody..?
That is not what I intended to say.
No, as horrible as it may sound, this is how I see the problem that
you are trying to address. If you can pinpoint some
J Andrew Rogers writes: Most arguments and disagreements over complexity are
fundamentally about the strict definition of the term, or the complete
absence thereof. The arguments tend to evaporate if everyone is forced to
unambiguously define such terms, but where is the fun in that.
I agree
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between theoretical
models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at least 1980,
and one thing I have noticed is that people devise theoretical
structures
how I presume a Novamente system would work
I think that we all need to be more careful about our
presumptions/assumptions. I think that many important comceptual pieces are
glossed over and lost this way.
Novamente currently has absolutely no sign of and/or detailed plans for
*numerous*
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
we must assume that we will never
How confident are you that this only-complex-AI limitation applies in
reality? How much would you bet on it? I'm not convinced, and I think
that if you are convinced too much, you made wrong conclusions from
your data, unless you communicated too little of what formed your
intuition.
I am
I am re-posting this because I first sent it out an hour ago and it is not
yet showing on my email
-Original Message-
RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? ---re Loosemore's
complexity argument
Richard,
I read the article in your blog (http://susaro.com/) cited
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
we must
On 20/04/2008, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson writes:
Consider an AI learning chess, it is told in plain english that...
I think the points you are striving for (assuming I understand what you
mean) are very important and interesting. Even the first simplest steps
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider also the sentence, There are words such as verbs, that are
doing words, you need to put a pronoun or noun before the verb.
People are given this sort of
.listbox.com
Subject: Language learning (Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES
IN AGI?)
--- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider also the sentence, There are words such as verbs, that are
doing words, you need to put a pronoun or noun before the verb.
People are given
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing I'm
trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: There's a piece called a 'knight'. It
moves by going two squares in one direction and then one in a perpendicular
direction. And here's something neat:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing
I'm trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: There's a piece called a 'knight'.
It moves by going two squares in one direction
Stephen Reed writes:
Hey Texai, let's program
[Texai] I don't know how to program, can you teach me by yourself?
Sure, first thing is that a program consists of statements that each does
something
[Texai] I assume by program you mean a sequence of instructions that a
computer can interpret and
]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:43:37 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
.hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Stephen Reed writes:
Hey Texai, let's
.
-Original Message-
From: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:33 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try
Vladimir Nesov writes: Generating concepts out of thin air is no big deal,
if only a resource-hungry process. You can create a dozen for each episode,
for example.
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a
(Aplogies for inadvertent empty reply to this :-)
On Saturday 19 April 2008 11:35:43 am, Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
In a single word: feedback.
At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter)
schemes I've seen can be caricatured
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a dozen get
generated instead... now I have twelve times as many things to explain. If
you
On Saturday 19 April 2008 11:35:43 am, Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
With the work done by Goertzel et al, Pei, Joscha Bach
http://www.micropsi.org/ , Sam Adams, and others who spoke at AGI 2008, I
feel we pretty much conceptually understand how build
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter)
schemes I've seen can be caricatured as follows:
1. Receive data from sensors.
2. Interpret into higher-level concepts.
3. Then a
: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Vladimir Nesov writes:
Generating concepts out of thin air is no big deal, if only a
resource
PIECES IN AGI?
(Aplogies for inadvertent empty reply to this :-)
On Saturday 19 April 2008 11:35:43 am, Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
In a single word: feedback.
At a very high level of abstraction, most the AGI (and AI for that matter)
schemes I've seen can
become a full
blown major conceptual piece.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:18 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
(Aplogies for inadvertent empty reply
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when people are given a sentence such as the one you quoted about verbs,
pronouns, and nouns, presuming they have some knowledge of most of the words
in the sentence, they will understand the concept that verbs are doing
words. This is
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
There is no evidence you are more justified in laughing at my position than
I am in saying your complexity issues do not appear to represent a major
unsolved conceptual issues.
Remember I am not denying complexity issues don't exist. Instead I am
saying it is not
On 21/04/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Problem is, in brains, there are actually more nerve fibers transmitting data
from higher numbers to lower, i.e. backwards, than forwards. I think that the
interpretation of sensory input is a much more active process than we AGIers
Richard Loosemore: I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the
general complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved.
I laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confident are you that this
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek,
I'll not paraphrase
On Monday 21 April 2008 05:33:01 pm, Ed Porter wrote:
I don't think your 5 steps do justice to the more sophisticated views of AGI
that are out their.
It was, as I said, a caricature. However, look, e.g., at the overview graphic
of this LIDA paper (page 8)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when people are given a sentence such as the one you quoted about
verbs,
pronouns, and nouns, presuming they have some knowledge
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
There is no evidence you are more justified
:27 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course the selection of what to attend to and what action to take is
often a function of what is being perceived and/or imagined
problem than a conceptual one.
Ed Porter
Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:05 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
On Monday 21 April 2008 05:33:01 pm, Ed Porter
Josh writes: You see, I happen to think that there *is* a consistent, general,
overall theory of the function of feedback throughout the architecture. And I
think that once it's understood and widely applied, a lot of the
architectures (repeat: a *lot* of the architectures) we have floating
I'm going to be very busy for the next few day, or even longer, so I wall be
slow responding to further comments on this thread until things cool down.
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confident
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
I read you Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Theoretical
Psychology article, and I still don't know what your are talking about
other than the game of life. I know you make a distinction between Richard
and non-Richard complexity. I understand
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek,
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between
theoretical models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at
least 1980, and one thing I have noticed is that people devise
theoretical structures that are based on the
19, 2008 7:57 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
With the work done by Goertzel et al, Pei, Joscha Bach
http://www.micropsi.org/ , Sam Adams, and others who spoke at AGI
--- SUMMARY OF POSTS SO FAR RE --- WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN
AGI?
===
===Matt Mahoney -- Sat 4/19/2008 12:10 PM
- Lack of well defined goals. What defines AGI? A better spam filter? A
robotic housemaid? Automating all human labor
.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
With the work done by Goertzel et al, Pei, Joscha Bach
http://www.micropsi.org/ , Sam Adams, and others who spoke at AGI 2008,
I
feel we pretty much
On 19/04/2008, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
I'm not quite sure how to describe it, but this brief sketch will have
to do until I get some more time. These may be in some new AI
material, but I haven't had the chance to read up much recently
William Pearson writes: Consider an AI learning chess, it is told in plain
english that...
I think the points you are striving for (assuming I understand what you mean)
are very important and interesting. Even the first simplest steps toward this
clear and (seemingly) simple task baffle me.
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
With the work done by Goertzel et al, Pei, Joscha Bach
http://www.micropsi.org/ , Sam Adams, and others who spoke at AGI 2008, I
feel we pretty much conceptually understand how build powerful AGI's. I'm
not necessarily saying we know all the pieces
--- Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
- Lack of well defined goals. What defines AGI? A better spam filter? A
robotic housemaid? Automating all human labor?
- Inability to reverse engineer the human brain. Why do we need 10^15
synapses
.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35:43 AM
Subject: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
With the work done
Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI?
One that appears to me to be missing, or at least not emphasized, is
that general intelligence is inefficient compared to specialized
techniques. In any particular sub-domain specialized intelligence will
be able to employ
54 matches
Mail list logo
