Thanks, I hope your research goes well (facebook/tumblr). I just want to
continue to educate myself on the subject until I can start implementing my own
AGI algorithms or theoretical architecture in text. I want to be able to
actually add some substance to this big project, and I feel like I maybe did
just a little through your nice compliment.
From: Piaget Modeler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:12 AM
To: AGI
Subject: RE: [agi] Minksy criticism
I'm watching Minsky's video:
http://video.mit.edu/watch/emotion-machine-commonsense-thinking-artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-the-human-mind-9267/
Very informative. Minsky's been around the block it seems.
The most poignant slide is attached.
Fascinating.
~PM.
P.S. Thanks again Danny for sharing.
________________________________
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 21:42:20 -0500
Subject: [agi] Minksy criticism
I really don't know much about this subject , so if this question has been
answered and you know where to find the answer, I'd appreciate it if someone
could point it out to me. I'm really curious if there is anyone out there as
interested in the subject as me who I can converse with! This seems to be the
place!
I just started researching AGI and I was wondering about questions regarding
Ben's criticisms on Minsky's book "The society of mind" and "the emotion
machine". Those theories makes a lot of sense to me, but ben thinks "societies"
is the wrong way to think about the mind, etc. Why is Minsky's theories
different than bens? I can't find the source from where he said this, I think
it might have been in an interview, but I'm not sure. But the criticism was
something along the lines of "Minsky's mind society does not consider the
"synergy" of the mind working together."
Here is my rebuttal:
In his second book "Emotion Machine" Minsky describes the mind as a series of
"resources" instead of societies, but it's largely the same concept. Anyway,
when a person "thinks", certain "resources" get turned on or off depending on
the higher level goals of the question. When someone is in excruciating Pain,
most resources turn off, leaving the individual to force to think about how to
get rid of the pain. In Love, sometimes it seems as if a whole new "program" is
running and blemishes can turn into embellishments-meaning, the "resources" for
being turned off by physical, or personality defects is switched off. In the
example of Pain, the higher level resource called "Pain" switches off all the
other resources.
How is it wrong to think of the mind as societies or resources as Minsky
thinks? Why does the idea of hierarchy societies controlling lesser societies
not work?
I'm also aware that the question of "Where do the algorithms for the higher
level societies come from?" But that is answered by the code described in our
DNA and which has developed through mysterious events in evolution over
thousands of years.
I have not gotten too in depth in the book yet, but I don' see how this theory
lacks as a supplementary framework for OpenCog. I am also familiar with the
different sets of learning that OpenCog is, including MOSES and the others. I
also have not investigated how these systems work, so maybe they actually do
function as switches of on and off resources. OpenCog is supposed to emulate a
three year olds mind, right? How is that working out?
I vaguely understand the pattern theory that ben is all about, and I was
wondering also if someone could point out where I can read more of that?
**This is so exciting and I am really grateful for everyone who is dedicating
their time working on this relatively unknown idea. I am talking to all my
friends about and trying to spread the idea of singularity. If I had more
knowledge in programming, I'd be on board to help out! I hope that this happens
in my lifetime, that it is a benevolent creature, and that it is "sensitive",
caring, like humans.
As ben loves to say, "why would we care about a few ants or bacteria that die
in building a skyscraper?" It is because we realize they are creatures too, and
we wouldn't want them to completely annihilate us. I do not think that the only
reason people study them is for reasons to only elevate our understanding of
the universe. Why can't the reason be that we want to help other creatures get
better? Just because someone is smarter than another, why wouldn't it be
comprehensible for it to wish to help the lesser? I hope that AGI systems will
"feel" that desire. The programmers need to be very careful building this
thing, even if that means gambling their dreams of eternity, because we have to
consider the future of our children if it turns out to be malevolent, luckily
most people are aware of this alternative.
Thanks everybody,
Danny
AGI | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
[https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> |
Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription
[https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]<http://www.listbox.com>
AGI | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
[https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24010057-f37fa9ab> |
Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription
[https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]<http://www.listbox.com>
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
