Steve, Dorian, 

 

DORIAN> . In addition, the first   prototype  does not need to be entirely
analog. 

I entirely agree, actually we have no other choice. 

 

I feel fully obliged to respond in extent, but my time is limited. For now,
here is what I propose. The goal of demonstrating the capabilites of analogs
is highly desirable but will have to wait a little. A more modest goal needs
to be set, and this would be to simulate an analog on a PC and use it to
demonstrate how self-organization would work on an analog. A paper can be
published comparing the PC with an equivalent analog. 

 

My own immediate plans include doing just that, perhaps with a simple
problem of OO analysis or image recognition. I have already the algorithm,
fresh from the owen, and will write software for it soon. If you want, you
can do the same thing on your PC, I can help (you must be a good
programmer), the advantage for you being that you will end up having your
own platform. 

 

 

 

Ben, 

 

I am not sure if you are aware that algorithms that halt are causets. The
relations between variables in any algorithm satisfies the same conditions
postulated in the definition of causets. 

 

What this tells me, is that causets are a better way of describing the world
than algorithms. Because everything in the world will halt. So causets turn
the halting problem on its head. Do we really need algorithms at all, and
paying the price of introducing the halting problem?  Comments? 

 

Sergio

 

 

 

From: Dorian Aur [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:38 PM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] Analog Computation

 

In addition, the first   prototype  does not need to be entirely analog.

Steve's terms of "weak AGI" and "strong AGI"  make sense in this context, he
is making history .  Indeed, the  "weak AGI"  framework does not seem to
move far from current  AI,  it is limited by:
 (i) the Turing framework;
 (ii) fairly good math components  added on a distorted  interpretation of
experimental data - many biological misconceptions - digital spike, the
connectionist paradigm - everything is  between neurons -- completely
untrue!

Dorian

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]>
wrote:

Steve,

 

you are not alone. How big can one go with an FPGA that is currently
available? 1K? 10K? 10K would already be nearing some practical applications
with EI, but 100K would be better. I am thinking EI because I am sure that,
if EI can be demonstrated for example in image recognition, then it would
attract attention immediately, including the chip makers. "General
computation" is too vague. Or, better, I propose to start "general
computation" with EI, then one could expand. 

 

Also, personally I believe this would be "hyper-Turing" but I would be very
careful with that term because there is too mych hype about it. Ben has
strong reasons why it is better not to use the term for now. I am very happy
that such things can be calculated, and there is plenty of time to find out
if they are hyper or not. 

 

Do you do these things? Do you build analogs from components? I don't have
any money, but just saying. 

 

Sergio

 

 

 

From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:48 PM


To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] Analog Computation

 

Sergio,

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky
<[email protected]> wrote:

how do you do millions with analogs? 


The technology is well known and would be fairly easy to build, but the
chips aren't (yet) available because there is no market (yet) for them!!!
This is obviously a chicken-or-egg problem.

Basically, you would build it just like an FPGA, where the interconnections
are made with programmed transmission gates. However, instead of switching
logic gates, you would be switching integrators and other analog building
blocks.

Note that people have already done this, but switched "artificial neuron
synapses" instead of more general purpose analog building blocks.

Such a device attached to a PC as an outboard processor could enable really
general purpose hyper-Turing computation at pretty much full unhindered
speeds. I see the promise here, but so far I seem to stand alone in this.

Steve


AGI |  <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> | Modify
Your Subscription

 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> 

 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>  


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> AGI |
Archives | Modify Your Subscription

 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> 

 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>  


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> AGI |
Archives | Modify Your Subscription

 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> 

 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>  




-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to