I remember this guy - he is on this list? Haha I'm reading his research notes and I like them! He says (1969) exactly what I said when I first started AI research: http://www.adaptroninc.com/BookPage/1969-and-1970
"98. Sight and attention: I can pay attention to a spot on the wall and my attention is on a specific very small area of the retina. I also can pay attention to something out of the corner (side) of my eye. I can stare at one thing but not see it but see something out of the corner of my eye but not in so much detail as if I looked straight at it. So my attention can switch not only to sight sound and feel but to a specific area of sight or even just the general picture of what I’m looking at. Now when you imagine something you combine the small specific sight areas into a general picture. Like a man with green togs a straw hat walking on a beach, each specific thing is seen in memory and then combined to form a general picture." He sounds very precise so far, having first written about how the body has wires, I/O, electricity (the "blood"), etc. That's something I do too. I read Ben's 2 books from 2014 on CogPrime in 2 days, I skimmed the 2nd as it was just saying what names of things were etc (2nd is only useful if you want to look at his code I assume). They were interesting. Any recent change to the design or is it pretty similar? Do you Ben have an evaluation for your AI on the Hutter Prize test? If not, please try it! BTW how do Truth Values improve Prediction on text/images? And does CogPrime use Backprop? My design for AGI is actually all synergy. It merges so much very tightly. I bet Ben didn't expect me to be doing well in the synergy department, and I also didn't expect to see in his book him talk about (well it can be a slippery topic in what one means) what he said was the wrong way to talk about AGI i.e. he said synergy not mechanisms yet here he says it like I do lol!: "Why might a solid, objective empirical test for intermediate progress toward AGI be an infeasible notion? One possible reason, we suggest, is precisely cognitive synergy, as discussed above. The cognitive synergy hypothesis, in its simplest form, states that human-level AGI intrinsically depends on the synergetic interaction of multiple components (for instance, as in CogPrime, multiple memory systems each supplied with its own learning process). In this hypothesis, for instance, it might be that there are 10 critical components required for a human-level AGI system. Having all 10 of them in place results in human-level AGI, but having only 8 of them in place results in having a dramatically impaired system—and maybe having only 6 or 7 of them in place results in a system that can hardly do anything at all. Of course, the reality is almost surely not as strict as the simplified example in the above paragraph suggests. No AGI theorist has really posited a list of 10 crisply defined subsystems and claimed them necessary and sufficient for AGI. We suspect there are many different routes to AGI, involving integration of different sorts of subsystems. However, if the cognitive synergy hypothesis is correct, then human-level AGI behaves roughly like the simplistic example in the prior paragraph suggests. Perhaps instead of using the 10 components, you could achieve human-level AGI with 7 components, but having only 5 of these 7 would yield drastically impaired functionality—etc. Or the point could be made without any decomposition into a finite set of components, using continuous probability distributions. To mathematically formalize the cognitive synergy hypothesis becomes complex, but here we’re only aiming for a qualitative argument. So for illustrative purposes, we’ll stick with the “10 components” example, just for communicative simplicity." I liked the part when Ben talks about the car-man! And that patterns create new patterns - it's true. And how to know when we are 50% or 75% understood AGI. And balancing how/if should all of Earth or just a few people be allowed to have AGI and realizing it's out of our control and already all over Earth and how good wins usually. I thought about all these, too. Ben says the intelligence of kids is a useful post-goal to help us design AGI and teach it, yes kids do grow new intelligence functions as they age even though their native intelligence are hardwired. It may take them a year to build semantics and especially categories, so kids actually do have less utilization or appearance of all native hardwiring as well. Also our post-goals should be also ex. prehistoric intelligence emulation. So, monkeys, lizards, cells, molecules, particles. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T0d219e496eb3dd03-M9cd247a865dad611d56343e4 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
