Russell, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Russell Wallace <[email protected]>wrote:
> If you are trying to design an AGI, what is your design going to be a big > version of? > Re-mentioning something from the past, but with new emphasis... When I was ~15 I discovered numerical series and their ability to predict future elements, which it appeared to me at that time to be what math was all about. I set about creating formulas that in effect merged several different series together and predicted future elements, in the sophomoric hope that the world was a LOT better organized than it is. This also paralleled an "intelligence" test that I had taken, which consisted of lists of numbers and the problem of guessing the next number. It looked to me at that time like "simple" (page-long) formulas might actually be judged as being "intelligent"!!! My effort failed for several reasons, some of which may be repairable, but the dream continues - with AGI being perhaps the ultimate extension. My primary discovery in this early failed effort was that linear algebra could in effect make decisions, and make "proportional decisions" akin to Bayesian math WITHOUT resorting to ANY conditional methodology!!! Of course, my early effort was only one-dimensional - lists of numbers as input, with the problem being to predict the next. However, I don't see any fundamental reason why the concept couldn't be extended to any number of dimensions. Imagine a system of elements (perhaps like biological neurons, but NOT like people now think biological neurons work) with the capability of predicting their inputs into the future (with obvious uncertainties and errors) via substantially linear, or at least continuous means. Some inputs would be "free" and reflect our intentions. Solving problems would consist of manipulating the free inputs until a desired result was achieved, perhaps using methods akin to genetic algorithms. In short, maybe our present "elements" of neurons, Bayesian logic, etc., are just too damn simple for the task at hand. OK, I have proposed above one prospective class of super-elements. Does anyone here have ideas for other super-elements? Steve ======================= > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> WAY back in the 1960s, a friend of mine, Carl Nicolai, now only known as >> the inventor of non-deterministic crypto, was promoting the use of >> pseudo-random carrier waves for spread spectrum communication - to go MUCH >> farther with less power. As his ideas started to catch on, one UCSF EE >> professor even put up a web site to debunk such craziness!!! >> >> Carl was SO disconnected from the mainstream that he couldn't get his >> articles published, and his patent promptly received a Secrecy Order. >> >> Of course, Carl's thoughts are now accepted as routine communications >> methods. >> >> Now, AGI seems to be caught in a similar sort of "trap" as RF >> communications once was, where present dogma and "leaders" are leading it >> to a dead end. >> >> Organizationally, AGI appears to be on a suicide mission, thinking it to >> be SO well targeted that it can enjoy the luxury of dismissing articles >> about radically different approaches as being "off topic" for conference >> presentations. Guys like Carl would NEVER have been acceptable to any >> conference. >> >> I think we have all hoped that guys like Jim and Tintner would see where >> the King has put his clothes. when we can all see quite clearly that the >> King is wearing them. This has led to an insane level of tolerance, because >> we all know that all it may take is one CAREFULLY calculated question to >> blow AGI wide open. Yet - apparently, the question remains unasked. >> >> For example, maybe we just haven't figured out yet where in an AGI to put >> the random number generator? We know that we NEED randomness in game theory >> and genetic algorithms, so I doubt that an AGI could be guilt without using >> a random number generator. >> >> OK, half a decade of discussions has failed to find the Holy Grail of >> AGI. Now, how about taking a step back and working on some good QUESTIONS? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Steve >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/1658954-f53d1a3f> | >> 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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- 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. ------------------------------------------- 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
