Can't track down anything on that from the conference page. I did come upon this not bad parallel AGI forum:
http://nz.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/173rls/computation_beyond_turing_by_jeff_hawkins/ http://nz.reddit.com/r/artificial/ On 29 July 2013 17:17, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Jeff Hawkins, AAAI-13 workshop. July 15, 2013. > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:34:30 +0100 > Subject: Re: [agi] A Very Simple AGI Project > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Some have said that representation is the only problem of AI. > > ~PM > > Care to expand a little? I guess, off the top of my head, I can partly > agree - actually creative problemsolving is what AGI is about. But you need > a creative form/medium of representation to do that. And that medium is > concepts - eg GO TO THE KITCHEN - narrow AI (the whole of present AI) > can't do concepts. > > > On 29 July 2013 01:46, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Some have said that representation is the only problem of AI. > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] A Very Simple AGI Project > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:07:17 -0400 > > One of the interesting but disappointing things about groups like this is > that there is pretty serious lack of insightful criticism and comment. > Part of that, of course, is just based on simple lack of understanding, but > most of it seems based on total disbelief that the premises of the > approaches that have been talked about are being taken seriously. I really > cannot understand how anyone can take AIXI seriously and I cannot > understand how someone can take the neuroscience approach seriously. It > would be as if I were to say that I am working on an AGI program that is > based on a polynomial time solution to Boolean SAT (which I will one day > solve.) I mean, can you take something like that seriously without first > seeing the polynomial time solution (or an amazing AGI program which was > based on it)? There is nothing wrong with looking at these ideas and > seeing how far you can go with them, but I think there is a lot wrong > with believing that one of these methods are currently viable. Using > Bayesian methods, compression methods and information theory, trying to > create algorithms that emulate observed and theoretical neural processes, > and trying to come up with creative logical methods all make perfect sense > to me. I just think that the fringe science that is based on taking some > sound methods to an absurd theoretical extreme looks like a pretty terrible > place to start. > > I went through some severe cold feet with my own would-be AGI project. > The massive inefficiency of a practical method of representing the > possibilities is really unacceptable. I just could not get myself going > with such inept representational methods that we seem to be stuck with. > However, after going through a couple of days of talking myself into > acceptance I finally came up with an elementary system that would create > some efficiencies without making the look-ups too deep. I am thinking of > the problem of initial recognition but it is the same through out all the > stages of analysis and response. I am just going to come up with a simple > intuitive method to reduce the grossest inefficiencies that a simpler > implementation of my ideas would create. > > I thought about using numerous Neural Networks or a Bayesian Networks for > the initial recognition lookup problem, but then I started wondering about > a more definitive network that would use a few of the characteristics of > the neural network (it would become more extensive to represent more inputs > or to be more precise in determining the outputs for a particular kind of > input) but it would also have the characteristics of the network that > I have been thinking of (it might utilize a greater variety of specific > markers to represent syntactic characteristics of input and output, it > could use reason based reasoning and so on. The only problem with this plan > is that I haven't figured it out yet. The whole project is supposed to > help me discover how I might create such a thing, so I really don't know if > I could start the project with it. I might try a simplified version of it. > I might use weighted evaluations but they could, for example, be used to > represent approximations to multiple output values (representing indexes > to data). It would not be a conventional Neural or Bayesian Network. For > example, it could be designed to represent approximations to values in some > non-conventional ways. This is an interesting idea. I have to think about > it for a few days. > > Jim Bromer > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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
