Mike Tintner wrote: ...how would you design a play machine - a machine
that can play around as a child does?
I wouldn't. IMHO that's just another waste of time and effort (unless it's
being done purely for research purposes). It's a diversion of intellectual
and financial resources that
Chill down Jim, he took it back.
On 8/24/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intolerance of another person's ideas through intimidation or ridicule
is intellectual repression. You won't elevate a discussion by
promoting a program anti-intellectual repression. Intolerance of a
person
In other words, Vladimir, you are suggesting that an AGI must be at some
level controlled from humans, therefore not 'fully-embodied' in order to
prevent non-friendly AGI as the outcome.
Therefore humans must somehow be able to control its goals, correct?
Now, what if controlling those goals
Eric,
http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/research/rair/asc_rca/
Sorry, couldn't answer your question based on quick read.
Cheers,
Brad
Eric Burton wrote:
Does anyone know if Rensselaer Institute is still on track to crack
the Turing Test by 2009? There was a Slashdot article or two about
their
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, Vladimir, you are suggesting that an AGI must be at some
level controlled from humans, therefore not 'fully-embodied' in order to
prevent non-friendly AGI as the outcome.
Controlled in Friendliness
Brad,
That's sad. The suggestion is for a mental exercise, not a full-scale
project. And play is fundamental to the human mind-and-body - it
characterises our more mental as well as more physical activities -
drawing, designing, scripting, humming and singing scat in the bath,
Kittens play with small moving objects because it teaches them to be better
hunters. Play is not a goal in itself, but a subgoal that may or may not be a
useful part of a successful AGI design.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL
On 8/25/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In other words, Vladimir, you are suggesting that an AGI must be at some
level controlled from humans, therefore not 'fully-embodied' in order to
prevent
John, I have looked at your patent and various web pages. You list a lot of
nice sounding ethical terms (honor, love, hope, peace, etc) but give no details
on how to implement them. You have already admitted that you have no
experimental results, haven't actually built anything, and have no
Matt: Kittens play with small moving objects because it teaches them to be
better hunters. Play is not a goal in itself, but a subgoal that may or may
not be a useful part of a successful AGI design.
Certainly, crude imitation of, and preparation for, adult activities is one
aspect of play.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/25/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would anyone suggest creating a disaster, as you pose the question?
Also agree. As far as you know, has anyone, including Eliezer, suggested any
method or
Actually, kittens play because it's fun. Evolution has equipped them with the
rewarding sense of fun because it optimizes their fitness as hunters. But
kittens are adaptation executors, evolution is the fitness optimizer. It's a
subtle but important distinction.
See
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, kittens play because it's fun. Evolution has equipped them with the
rewarding sense of fun because it optimizes their fitness as hunters. But
kittens are adaptation executors, evolution is the fitness
Mike,
I agree with Brad somewhat, because I do not think copying human (or
animal) intellect is the goal. It is a means to the end of general
intelligence.
However, that certainly doesn't stop me from participating in a
thought experiment.
I think the big thing with artificial play is figuring
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for taking the time to read my article and pose excellent questions. My
attempts at answers below.
--- On Sun, 8/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Terren Suydam
What is the point of building general intelligence if all
it does is
Play is a form a strategy testing in an environment that doesn't
severely penalize failures. As such, every AGI will necessarily spend a
lot of time playing.
If you have some other particular definition, then perhaps I could
understand your response if you were to define the term.
OTOH, if
Matt,
What is your opinion on Goedel machines?
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html
--Abram
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These have profound impacts on AGI design. First, AIXI is (provably) not
I'm not saying play isn't adaptive. I'm saying that kittens play not because
they're optimizing their fitness, but because they're intrinsically motivated
to (it feels good). The reason it feels good has nothing to do with the kitten,
but with the evolutionary process that designed that
Terren,
Your broad distinctions are fine, but I feel you are not emphasizing the
area of most interest for AGI, which is *how* we adapt rather than why.
Interestingly, your blog uses the example of a screwdriver - Kauffman uses
the same in Chap 12 of Reinventing the Sacred as an example of
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying play isn't adaptive. I'm saying that kittens play not
because they're optimizing their fitness, but because they're intrinsically
motivated to (it feels good). The reason it feels good has nothing to do
2008/8/25 Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- On Sun, 8/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Terren Suydam
wrong. This ability might be an end in itself, the whole
point of
building an AI, when considered as applying to the dynamics
of the
world
Hi Mike,
As may be obvious by now, I'm not that interested in designing cognition. I'm
interested in designing simulations in which intelligent behavior emerges.
But the way you're using the word 'adapt', in a cognitive sense of playing with
goals, is different from the way I was using
Saying
that a particular cat instance hunts because it feels good
is not very explanatory
Even if I granted that, saying that a particular cat plays to increase its
hunting skills is incorrect. It's an important distinction because by analogy
we must talk about particular AGI instances.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The word because was misplaced. Cats hunt mice because they were
designed to, and they were designed to, because it's adaptive.
And the adaption they have evolved in to, uses a pleasure process as a
motivator.
Saying
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saying
that a particular cat instance hunts because it feels good
is not very explanatory
Even if I granted that, saying that a particular cat plays to increase
its hunting skills is incorrect. It's an important
Terren:As may be obvious by now, I'm not that interested in designing
cognition. I'm interested in designing simulations in which intelligent
behavior emerges.But the way you're using the word 'adapt', in a cognitive
sense of playing with goals, is different from the way I was using
Hi Will,
I don't doubt that provable-friendliness is possible within limited,
well-defined domains that can be explicitly defined and hard-coded. I know
chess programs will never try to kill me.
I don't believe however that you can prove friendliness within a framework that
has the
If an AGI played because it recognized that it would improve its skills in some
domain, then I wouldn't call that play, I'd call it practice. Those are
overlapping but distinct concepts.
Play, as distinct from pactice, is its own reward - the reward felt by a
kitten. The spirit of Mike's
Hi Mike,
Comments below...
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two questions: 1) how do you propose that your simulations
will avoid the
kind of criticisms you've been making of other systems
of being too guided
by programmers' intentions? How can you set up a
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If an AGI played because it recognized that it would improve its skills
in some domain, then I wouldn't call that play, I'd call it practice. Those
are overlapping but distinct concepts.
Play, as distinct from pactice,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If an AGI played because it recognized that it would improve its skills in
some domain, then I wouldn't call that play, I'd call it practice. Those are
overlapping but distinct concepts.
The evolution of play is how
Where is the hard dividing line between designed cognition and designed
simulation (where intelligent behavior is intended to be emergent in both
cases)? Even if an approach is taken where everything possible is done allow
a 'natural' type evolution of behavior, the simulation design and
Terren: The spirit of Mike's question, I think, was about identifying the
essential goalless-ness of play..
Well, the key thing for me (although it was, technically, a play-ful
question :) ) is the distinction between programmed/planned exploration of
a basically known environment and ad hoc
Jonathan El-Bizri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If an AGI played because it recognized that it would improve its
skills in some domain, then I wouldn't call that play, I'd call it
practice. Those are
Is friendliness really so context-dependent? Do you have to be human
to act friendly at the exception of acting busy, greedy, angry, etc? I
think friendliness is a trait we project onto things pretty readily
implying it's wired at some fundamental level. It comes from the
social circuits, it's
Eric,
We're talking Friendliness (capital F), a convention suggested by Eliezer
Yudkowsky, that signifies the sense in which an AI does no harm to humans.
Yes, it's context dependent. Do no harm is the mantra within the medical
community, but clearly there are circumstances in which you do a
Hi Johnathon,
I disagree, play without rules can certainly be fun. Running just to run,
jumping just to jump. Play doesn't have to be a game, per se. It's simply a
purposeless expression of the joy of being alive. It turns out of course that
play is helpful for achieving certain goals that we
Hi David,
Any amount of guidance in such a simulation (e.g. to help avoid so many
of the useless
eddies in a fully open-ended simulation) amounts to
designed cognition.
No, it amounts to guided evolution. The difference between a designed
simulation and a designed cognition is the focus on
38 matches
Mail list logo
