I didn't intend this to become a monthly advertisement for Dell, but if
someone comes up with more bang-for-the-buck (BFTB) from someone else I
would be very interested.
The February 2003 most BFTB system ran $399, this month you have to spend a
little more to get the best deal.
$499 including
Unless Ben thinks it would not be appropriate for this
list, I would like to start a "doubling time" watcher monthly posting of retail
computer pricesfor purposes of establishing a historical record so that
questions of doubling time can be grounded in current data.
My choice of category is
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike
DeeringSent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:00 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [agi] "doubling time"
watcher.
Unless Ben thinks it would not be appropriate for this
list, I would lik
I would like to contribute new SPEC CINT 2000 results as they are posted
to the SPEC benchmark list by semiconductor manufacturers. I expect
to post perhaps 10 times per year with this news. This is the source data
for my Human Equivalent Computing spreadsheet and regression line.
If Kurzweil
I would like to contribute new SPEC CINT 2000 results as they are posted
to the SPEC benchmark list by semiconductor manufacturers. I expect
to post perhaps 10 times per year with this news. This is the source data
for my Human Equivalent Computing spreadsheet and regression line.
I'm
Brad writes, Might it not be a more accurate measure to chart mobo+CPU com=
bo prices?
Maybe. If you wanted to research and post this data I'm sure it would be =
helpful to have.
Check out www.pricewatch.com. They have a search engine which ranks products by
vendors. Using this,
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:48, Ben Goertzel wrote:
A completely unknown genius at the University of Outer Kirgizia could
band together with his grad students and create an AGI in 5 years,
then release it on the shocked world.
Ack! I thought this was a secret!
Curses, foiled again...
I used the assumptions of Hans Moravec to arrive at Human Equivalent
Computer processing power:
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/
Of course as we get closer to AGI then the error delta becomes smaller. I
am comfortable with the name for now and will adjust the metric as more
info
Billy, I agree that AGI is a complicated architecture of
hundreds of separarate software solutions. But all of these solutions have
utility in other software environments and progress is being made by tens of
thousands of programmers each working on improving some little software function
IL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: AGI Complexity (WAS: RE: [agi]
"doubling time" watcher.)
Billy, I agree that AGI is a complicated architecture of
hundreds of separarate software solutions. But all of these solutions
have utility in other software environments and progress is being made b
From recent comments here I can see there are still a lot of people out
there who think that building an AGI is a relatively modest-size
project, and the key to success is simply uncovering some new insight
or technique that has been overlooked thus far.
I would agree with that though the
:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AGI Complexity (WAS: RE: [agi] doubling time watcher.)
From recent comments here I can see there are still a lot of people out
there who think that building an AGI is a relatively modest-size project,
and the key to success is simply uncovering some new
Ben Goertzel wrote:
But of course, none of us *really know*.
Technically, I believe you mean that you *think* none of us really know,
but you don't *know* that none of us really know. To *know* that none of
us really know, you would have to really know.
--
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Ben Goertzel wrote:
And I'm a huge advocate of the integrative approach.
My feeling is that maybe half of the ingredients of
an AGI are things that were created for other (usually
narrow AI) purposes and can be used, not off the shelf,
but with only moderate rather than severe modifications.
The brain is actually fantasticly simple...
It is nothing compared with the core of a linux operating system
(kernel+glibc+gcc).
Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
ways than the brain, it seems...
The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple
Brad Wyble wrote:
I'm uncomfortable with the phrase Human Equivalent because I think we
are very far from understanding what that phrase even means. We don't
yet know the relevant computational units of brain function. It's
not just spikes, it's not just EEG rhythms. I understand we'll never
]
Subject: RE: AGI Complexity (WAS: RE: [agi] doubling time watcher.)
Ben Goertzel wrote:
And I'm a huge advocate of the integrative approach.
My feeling is that maybe half of the ingredients of
an AGI are things that were created for other (usually
narrow AI) purposes and can be used
Well, we invented our own specialized database system (in effect) but not
our own network protocol.
In each case, it's a tough decision whether to reuse or reimplement. The
right choice always comes down to the nasty little details...
The biggest Ai waste of time has probably been
Brad Wyble wrote:
Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
ways than the brain, it seems...
The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple processing
pattern and then repeating it millions of times.
Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your
Ben Goertzel wrote:
However, I don't agree with your quantitative estimate that an AGI has to
be
orders of magnitude bigger than any software project ever attempted.
I agree that many people underestimate the problem, but I think you
overestimate the problem. And mis-estimate it. I think
Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your familiarity with neuroscience
before making such claims in the future. I'm not sure what simplified model
of the neuron you are using, but be assured that there are many layers of
complexity of function within even a simple neuron, let alone in
OTOH, at least Novamente has enough internal complexity to reach
territory that hasn't already been explored by classical AI research. I
don't expect it to wake up, but I expect it will be a lot more
productive than those One True Simple Formula For Intelligence-type
projects.
Yes and
Do you see another option for simplification?
I am not starting from a foundational concept of brain emulation, so I'm
not really faced with the problem of simplifying the brain.
Maybe. Maybe not. To be honest, I think most people in this field
have a bad
habit of using general intelligence
The thing that gives me the most confidence in you Ben is that
you made it to round 2 and you're still swinging. You've
personally learned the hard lessons of AGI design
Well, some of them ;) I'm sure there are plenty of hard lessons ahead!!
-- ben
and its
pitfalls that most of
Say I'm designing an AGI architecture (which I am btw, but it is
irrelevant
to this discussion :) and I want to preprocess audio data so that speech
is
already parsed by the time it enters the AI's cognitive modules. All I
need
to do is obtain a preexisting natural language parser program
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Brad Wyble wrote:
. . .
Incorrect. The cortex has genetically pre-programmed systems.
It cannot be said that is a matrix loaded with software from
subcortical structures..
. . .
Yes, but there is a very interesting experiment with rewiring
brains of young ferrets so
[META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own
standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and
ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
Brad Wyble wrote:
The situation for understanding a single neuron is somewhat disastrous.
...
I'm just
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I like to distinguish two kinds of specialized mechanisms:
1) those that are autonomous
2) those that build specialized functionality on a foundation of
general-intelligence-oriented structures and dynamics
The AI field, so far, has focused mainly on Type 1. But I
[META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own
standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and
ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
I think we're suffering from emacs issues, I'm using elm.
Iff the brain is not unique in its
I believe that the precision with which digital computers can do things,
will allow intelligence to be implemented more simply on them
than in the
brain. This precision allows entirely different structures and
dynamics to
be utilized, in digital AGI systems as opposed to brains. For
Not exactly. It isn't that I think we should give up on AGI, but rather that
we should be consciously planning for it to take several decades to get
there. We should still tackle the problems in front of us, instead of giving
up on real AI work altogether. But we need to get past the idea
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I like to distinguish two kinds of specialized mechanisms:
1) those that are autonomous
2) those that build specialized functionality on a foundation of
general-intelligence-oriented structures and dynamics
The AI field, so far, has focused mainly on Type 1.
Higher-order function representations are not robust in the sense that
neural representations probably are: they aren't redundant at all, one
error will totally change the meaning. They're not brainlike in any
sense. But maybe (if my hypothesis is right) they provide a great
foundation
The nature of neuroscience research doesn't really differentiate
between the two at present. In order to understand WHAT a brain part
does, we have to understand HOW it, and all structures connected to it
function. We need to understand the inputs and the outputs, and that's
all HOW.
34 matches
Mail list logo
