So it's about money then.. now THAT makes me feel less worried!! :)
That explains a lot though.
On 8/28/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got ya, thanks for the clarification. That brings up another question.
Why do we want to make an AGI?
Hi Ben,
My own feeling is that computation is just the latest in a series of technical
metaphors that we apply in service of understanding how the universe works.
Like the others before it, it captures some valuable aspects and leaves out
others. It leaves me wondering: what future metaphors
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for the response. It seems that you're advocating an incremental
approach *towards* FAI, the ultimate goal being full attainment of
Friendliness... something you express as fraught with difficulty but not
insurmountable. As you know, I disagree that it is attainable, because
TITLE: Embodiment: Who does not have a body?
AUTHOR: Pei Wang
ABSTRACT: In the context of AI, ``embodiment'' should not be
interpreted as ``giving the system a body'', but as ``adapting to the
system's experience''. Therefore, being a robot is neither a
sufficient condition nor a necessary
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for the response. It seems that you're advocating an incremental
approach *towards* FAI, the ultimate goal being full attainment of
Friendliness...
something you express as fraught with difficulty but
2008/9/2 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I agree that your Turing machine approach can model the same
situations, but the different formalisms seem to lend themselves to
different kinds of analysis more naturally...
I guess it all depends on what kinds of theorems you want to
2008/8/28 Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Got ya, thanks for the clarification. That brings up another question. Why
do we want to make an AGI?
To understand ourselves as intelligent agents better? It might enable
us to have decent education policy, rehabilitation of criminals.
Even if
Hey Vlad -
By considers itself Friendly, I'm refering to an FAI that is renormalizing in
the sense you suggest. It's an intentional stance interpretation of what it's
doing, regardless of whether the FAI is actually considering itself Friendly,
whatever that would mean.
I'm asserting that
Pei:it is important to understand
that both linguistic experience and non-linguistic experience are both
special
cases of experience, and the latter is not more real than the former. In
the previous
discussions, many people implicitly suppose that linguistic experience is
nothing but
hi,
What I am interested in is if someone gives me a computer system that
changes its state is some fashion, can I state how powerful that
method of change is likely to be? That is what the exact difference
between a traditional learning algorithm and the way I envisage AGIs
changing their
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm asserting that if you had an FAI in the sense you've described, it
wouldn't
be possible in principle to distinguish it with 100% confidence from a rogue
AI.
There's no Turing Test for Friendliness.
You design it
Pei,
I have a different sort of reason for thinking embodiment is important ...
it's a deeper reason that I think underlies the embodiment is important
because of symbol grounding argument.
Linguistic data, mathematical data, visual data, motoric data etc. are all
just bits ... and intelligence
I think that computation is not so much a metaphor for understanding the
universe as it is an explanation. If you enumerate all possible Turing
machines, thus enumerating all possible laws of physics, then some of those
universes will have the right conditions for the evolution of intelligent
Mike,
As I said before, you give symbol a very narrow meaning, and insist
that it is the only way to use it. In the current discussion,
symbols are not 'X', 'Y', 'Z', but 'table', 'time', 'intelligence'.
BTW, what images you associate with the latter two?
Since you prefer to use person as
Terren:My own feeling is that computation is just the latest in a series of
technical metaphors that we apply in service of understanding how the universe
works. Like the others before it, it captures some valuable aspects and leaves
out others. It leaves me wondering: what future metaphors
I think I have an appropriate term for what I was trying to conceptualise.
It is that intelligence has not only to be embodied, but it has to be
EMBEDDED in the real world - that's the only way it can test whether
information about the world and real objects is really true. If you want to
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I think is that the set of patterns in perceptual and motoric data has
radically different statistical properties than the set of patterns in
linguistic and mathematical data ... and that the properties of the set of
Matt, I have several objections.
First, as I understand it, your statement about the universe having a
finite description length only applies to the *observable* universe,
not the universe as a whole. The hubble radius expands at the speed of
light as more light reaches us, meaning that the
I'm talking about a situation where humans must interact with the FAI without
knowledge in advance about whether it is Friendly or not. Is there a test we
can devise to make certain that it is?
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Mike,
I see two ways to answer your question. One is along the lines that Jaron
Lanier has proposed - the idea of software interfaces that are fuzzy. So rather
than function calls that take a specific set of well defined arguments,
software components talk somehow in 'patterns' such that
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Computation as an explanation of the universe (was Re: [agi]
Recursive self-change: some definitions)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:35 PM
Matt, I have
Terren's request for new metaphors/paradigms for intelligence threw me
temporarily off course.Why a new one - why not the old one? The computer.
But the whole computer.
You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half
of them
What I'm doing here is what I said
Mike,
There's nothing particularly creative about keyboards. The creativity comes
from what uses the keyboard. Maybe that was your point, but if so the
digression about a keyboard is just confusing.
In terms of a metaphor, I'm not sure I understand your point about
organizers. It seems to me
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, lets take a concrete example: The Middle East situation,
and ask our infinitely intelligent AGI what to do about it.
OK, lets take a concrete example of friendly AI, such as competitive message
routing (
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about a situation where humans must interact
with the FAI without knowledge in advance about whether it
is Friendly or not. Is there a test we can devise to make
certain that it is?
No. If an AI has godlike intelligence,
Hey gang...
It’s Likely That Times Are Changing
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/35992/title/It%E2%80%99s_Likely_That_Times_Are_Changing
A century ago, mathematician Hermann Minkowski famously merged space with
time, establishing a new foundation for physics; today physicists are
On 09/03/2008 05:52 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I'm talking about a situation where humans must interact with the FAI without
knowledge in advance about whether it is Friendly or not. Is there a test we
can devise to make certain that it is?
This seems extremely unlikely. Consider that
Terren,
On 9/3/08, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about a situation where humans must interact with the FAI
without knowledge in advance about whether it is Friendly or not. Is there a
test we can devise to make certain that it is?
Like religions based on friendly
Terren,
If you think it's all been said, please point me to the philosophy of AI
that includes it.
A programmed machine is an organized structure. A keyboard (and indeed a
computer with keyboard) are something very different - there is no
organization to those 26 letters etc. They can be
29 matches
Mail list logo
