Colin, There are two radically different points of view of the SAME thing: 1. Real-world neurons are hypercomplex, with individual synapses having radical nonlinearities complete with discontinuities, and often including differentiation and/or integration, plus ???. Further, individual synapses appear to have several "accumulators" (ion accumulations) that appear to collect data to dynamically modify the operation of the associated synapses. Also, neurons can grow new synapses and abandon old synapses. In short, the diagrams of snails and bees are WORTHLESS, the neurons in each being akin to a diagram of a television but with NO component labels or values. 2. We simply don't understand the mathematics of much of what is being computed, though in a few cases we DO understand the math, e.g. neuromuscular neurons have been observed to utilize PID control techniques, and early visual layers are pretty well understood. We have a LOT of blanks to fill in before we can make anything that works right. Once the blanks have been filled in, we can then see what the nonlinearities, discontinuities, differentiations, integrations, accumulations, etc., are all about
AGI seems to be making the SAME errors as the management of Theranos (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y_3rcwkRfU) who recently blew through a billion dollars and produced nothing of value. Their problem was that they went for a particular high-end market that proved to be unreachable, while they passed by other lucrative markets that they could have easily owned. Gene Amdahl did the same thing with Trilogy Corporation ~40 years ago. There are other things that are easier than AGI and worth MORE, so AGI should NOT be the first intended target. Simulating particular people (to live forever) would be worth MUCH more than AGI, and doesn't require full human understanding to accomplish. Coming down from that, one year with a good microscope would uncover MANY pressing medical and information processing unknowns in brains. The microscope's ability to SEE the operation of active neurons could potentially guide a surgeon to visual identify and kill defective neurons in focal epilepsy patients - with virtually no R&D. I personally believe that full-on AGI, if done now, would probably prove to be of NEGATIVE net value. Our present world is clearly NOT yet ready for AGI. Maybe in another century or so, AGI could be introduced to the world without destroying the world. With other more easily reachable and more valuable targets, let's design for THOSE and go after AGI if/when a rational case can be made that it is worth going after. People here might not like this circuitous plan, but I think it is the ONLY viable plan, as I see NO direct path that doesn't needlessly risk a billions of dollars, and possibly produce nothing that works. Steve On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:33 PM Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve glad to see you back. > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Matt, Colin, et al, >> >> The REAL underlying problem is that AGI started too soon - there just >> isn't enough known to be able to "fill in the blanks" and build generally >> intelligent systems. Neuroscience needed more time and money to provide >> this information. >> > > I just delivered a working plan in another post. > > >> However, the way things have been going, neuroscience would take FOREVER >> to get there - like centuries. I have been involved for half a century, and >> there sure hasn't been a half-century of progress. >> > > Not as bad as that. Bee-level AGI in 15-20 years. Human? 2050-2070? I now > have real numbers to use and it's getting feasible. > > >> >> The problem with neuroscience is that they don't have the right tools - >> because their VW&R Catalog doesn't list high-resolution 3-D non-destructive >> UV microscopes that allow you to actually WATCH neurons in high-resolution >> operation, etc. >> > > We have enough signalling biophysics knowledge to get on with it and do > the science properly for a change (see my tome-responses to matt). > >> >> I figured out how to build the microscope. Everyone who has looked at my >> proposal perceives a different problem - usually while dismissing the >> problems perceived by others. The bottom line, if you embrace the idea that >> at least half the people will be at least half right, is that the >> microscope will do INCREDIBLE things - but like all laboratory instruments >> it will have limitations that can probably be worked around, like it might >> not be able to functionally diagram entire brains, etc. Further, we can't >> know just what those limitations will be until we build it. >> >> There have been proposals by others for new tools to open up >> neuroscience, like machines to automatically serially section small >> (mouse?) brains for scanning, etc. The challenge here is to cut thousands >> of sections without damaging ANY of them. >> >> Colin, what sort of tool(s) can YOU imagine to facilitate digging out how >> things work? >> > > The project plan is a new chip foundry. See the plan. You build the brain > physics on the chip and compare nature and the chip ... good old fashioned > science. It will discover things for wet neuroscience to look for ... for > example ... the exact location of transporter protiens and ion channels in > the membrane. Stuff like that. > > >> >> The point here is that there seems to be NO money to build this stuff, >> because there is no present market, because there is presently NOTHING like >> this stuff, etc. In short, the ENTIRE field of venture investing is fucked >> - and is taking out AGI in the process. >> > > It's been screwed over by computer science. We just need to get the > science configured correctly. > > >> >> All that seems to be needed are a few million dollars and a couple of >> years of time by some bright guys, like some of the folks on this forum. >> Google spends more that that on coffee. >> >> Where is Kurzweil? Where is Bazos? Where is Gates? Ben has started a >> bandwagon going nowhere other than AGI Winter, and all the big-money guys >> seem to be riding that bandwagon. >> >> and ... I am sitting here watching this slow motion train wreck. >> >> Depressing. >> > > Boy am I with you! I have been watching this strange debacle full time for > 20 years. > > >> >> Does anyone here have a few million dollars to spare - to make >> quadrillions of dollars in the future? >> >> Steve > > My estimate AGI #1, a dog sized robot with a bee-sized real AGI brain is > US$2-3Billion over 10-15 years. A hundreds of millions a year for a decade? > Like I said a better bet than UBER. > > Can we keep talking about the science? It might cheer you up a bit! :-) > > Colin > > > >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:33 PM Basile Starynkevitch < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 6/29/19 7:06 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >>> > >>> > On 6/29/19 5:21 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: >>> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> An AGI megaproject would require thousands of people working during >>> >>> several decades on it. Costing tens of billions of US$ or ???. >>> >>> >>> >>> As far as I know, it has not started. Even worse, I cannot name any >>> >>> megaproject today in the information technology domain. >>> >> >>> >> uh, what planet are u on? >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/private-equity-investment-in-artificial-intelligence.pdf >>> >> >>> >> https://www.thetechedvocate.org/six-countries-leading-the-ai-race/ >>> >> >>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/02/12/venture-capital-funding-for-artificial-intelligence-startups-hit-record-high-in-2018/#11ad12a141f7 >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/607716/worldwide-artificial-intelligence-market-revenues/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://secure.wealthdaily.com/187581?device=c&keyword=ai%20intelligence&gclid=CjwKCAjw9dboBRBUEiwA7VrrzTkh6YVG_yRrATxn6eInrUs-oMooia6fWUg5_JVCuGQnrulIQwt1ZhoCY28QAvD_BwE >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://www.google.com/search?sa=N&q=global+ai+investment&tbm=isch&source=univ&ved=2ahUKEwjombvw3Y3jAhWKneAKHcNnAkc4ChCwBHoECAUQAQ&biw=1060&bih=742 >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > But AI is not AGI, it today is mostly big data and machine learning. >>> > >>> > >>> > I mentioned AGI, not AI. That makes a huge difference. >>> > >>> > >>> > Notice that what was called AI in the 1980s (the goal -or dream- of >>> > achieving human like intelligence in some artificial system) is today >>> > called AGI. This is a change of terminology. >>> > >>> > >>> > And, as far as I know, there is no today a single software system on >>> > which tens of thousands computer scientist are working continuously >>> > for an entire career, e.g. several decades. >>> > >>> > Again, compare the current large AI projects to something like ITER, >>> > or the Apollo program. We have no -single- that large and that >>> > ambitious software project on Earth. >>> > >>> >>> And while I did mention The Mythical Man-Month previously, I forgot to >>> mention an important phrase from it: If one woman can make a baby in 9 >>> months, 9 women won't make a baby in 1 month. >>> >>> The equivalent is probably true for AGI, replacing months by decades. A >>> hundred of ambitious AI projects won't advance AGI, even if run in >>> parallel. Exactly like ten thousands of rocket clubs firing rockets to >>> 50 km don't improve any human to Mars space mission. >>> >>> We don't have the social & political structures to even start an >>> ambitious single software project with 10000 computer scientists working >>> for several decades. And we might not even know what organizational >>> structure could make such a project possible. >>> >>> So I don't expect AGI to come soon. >>> >>> -- >>> Basile STARYNKEVITCH == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile >>> opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes >>> Bourg La Reine, France >>> >> >> >> -- >> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >> full employment. >> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Mddadd648b86d2de8421920c9> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M7b73345908a8ebb658a255cc Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
