Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed - Nietzsche
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Jean-Paul Van Belle < [email protected]> wrote: > Create Rule Always Move Messages From Azn To Deleted. > > > > *From:* Azn A [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 04 April 2014 10:16 > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] MindOntology > > > > Okay hippie, lets see you get out of your parent's basement and into Apple > as CEO :) > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:57 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > Each person is their own Czar. One person has the power to change all at > any moment in their own slice of the multiverse. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Azn A [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, March 29, 2014 3:32 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] MindOntology > > > > Lol, I'm not a Neo-Reactionary. I don't believe in monarchs and all that > nonsense. However, I do believe that strong central control can get things > done :) > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Uh oh... the Invasion of the AGI List by the Neo-Reactionaries has begun > !!! > > The modern track record of monarchs per se is not so great, but the > success of Asian economies in recent decades does seem to speak to the > strengths of non-stupid strong central state control in fostering > technological progress... > > -- Ben G > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Azn A <[email protected]> wrote: > > Coolness, but what exactly do I have to gain by sharing my ideas? :) What > do you have to offer me? After talking to a number of people, I believe > that the only hope for the future is that the system can get a Czar (as in > me) - an Unincentivized Incentivizer, someone who controls the entire > system while standing outside of it. This isn't just about a better Web. > It's about restructuring our civilization -- a shift to a new social order > for the betterment of humanity. I'm tried of waiting around for things to > get done. Play time is over. > > > > *From slatestarcodex*: There is an extraordinarily useful pattern of > refactored agency in which you view humans as basically actors playing > roles determined by their incentives. Anyone who strays even slightly from > their role is outcompeted and replaced by an understudy who will do better. > That means the final state of a system is determined entirely by its > initial state and the dance of incentives inside of it. > > > > If a system has perverse incentives, it's not going to magically fix > itself; no one inside the system has an incentive to do that. The end user > of the system - the student or consumer - is already part of the incentive > flow, so they're not going to be helpful. The only hope is that the system > can get a Czar - an Unincentivized Incentivizer, someone who controls the > entire system while standing outside of it. > > > > For example, take the problems with the scientific community, which my > friends in Berkeley often discuss. There's lots of publication bias, > statistics are done in a confusing and misleading way out of sheer inertia, > and replications often happen very late or not at all. And sometimes > someone will say something like "I can't believe people are too dumb to fix > Science. All we would have to do is require early registration of studies > to avoid publication bias, turn this new and powerful statistical technique > into the new standard, and accord higher status to scientists who do > replication experiments. It would be really simple and it would vastly > increase scientific progress. I must just be smarter than all existing > scientists, since I'm able to think of this and they aren't." > > > > And I answer "Well, yeah, that would work for the Science Czar. He could > just make a Science Decree that everyone has to use the right statistics, > and make another Science Decree that everyone must accord replications > higher status. And since we all follow the Science Czar's Science Decrees, > it would all work perfectly!" > > > > Why exactly am I being so sarcastic? Because things that work from a > czar's-eye view don't work from within the system. No individual scientist > has an incentive to unilaterally switch to the new statistical technique > for her own research, since it would make her research less likely to > produce earth-shattering results and since it would just confuse all the > other scientists. They just have an incentive to want everybody else to do > it, at which point they would follow along. > > > > Likewise, no journal has the incentive to unilaterally demand early > registration, since that just means everyone who forgot to early register > their studies would switch to their competitors' journals. > > > > And since the system is only made of individual scientists and individual > journals, no one is ever going to switch and science will stay exactly as > it is. > > > > I use this "czar" terminology a lot. Like when people talk about reforming > the education system, I point out that right now students' incentive is to > go to the most prestigious college they can get into so employers will hire > them, employers' incentive is to get students from the most prestigious > college they can so that they can defend their decision to their boss if it > goes wrong, and colleges' incentive is to do whatever it takes to get more > prestige, as measured in US News and World Report rankings. Does this lead > to huge waste and poor education? Yes. Could an Education Czar notice this > and make some Education Decrees that lead to a vastly more efficient > system? Easily! But since there's no Education Czar everybody is just going > to follow their own incentives, which have nothing to do with education or > efficiency. > > > > A standard liberal democratic government is not an Unincentivized > Incentivizer. Government officials are beholden to the electorate and to > their campaign donors, and they need to worry about being outcompeted by > the other party. They, too, are slaves to their incentives. The obvious > solution to corporate welfare is "end corporate welfare". A three year old > could think of it. But anyone who tried would get outcompeted by powerful > corporate interests backing the campaigns of their opponents, or > outcompeted by other states that still have corporate welfare and use it to > send businesses and jobs their way. It's obvious from outside the system, > and completely impossible from the inside. It would appear we need some > kind of a Government Czar. > > > > Everyone realizes our current model of government is screwed up and > corrupt. We keep electing fresh new Washington Outsiders who promise with > bright eyes to unupscrew and decorruptify it. And then they keep being > exactly as screwed up and corrupt as the last group, because if you hire a > new actor to play the same role, the lines are still going to come out > exactly the same. Want reform? The lines to "Act V: An Attempt To Reform > The System" are already written and have been delivered dozens of times > already. How is changing the actors and actresses going to help? > > > > A Czar could actually get stuff done. Imperial Decree 1: End all corporate > welfare. Imperial Decree 2: Close all tax loopholes. Imperial Decree 3: > Health care system that doesn't suck. You get the idea. > > > > Would the Czar be corrupt and greedy and tyrannical? Yes, probably. Let's > say he decided to use our tax money to build himself a mansion ten times > bigger than the Palace of Versailles. The Internet suggests that building > Versailles today would cost somewhere between $200M and $1B, so let's > dectuple the high range of that estimate and say the Czar built himself a > $10 billion dollar palace. And he wants it plated in solid gold, so that's > another $10 billion. Fine. Corporate welfare is $200B per year. If the Czar > were to tell us "I am going to take your tax money and spend it on a giant > palace ten times the size of Versailles covered in solid gold", the proper > response would be "Great, but what are we going to do with the other $180 > billion dollars you're saving us?" > > > > In the democratic system, the incentive is always for the country to > become more progressive, because progressivism is the appeal to the lowest > common denominator. There may be reversals, false starts, and Reagan > Revolutions, but over the course of centuries democracy means inevitable > creeping progress. As Mencius Moldbug says, "Cthulhu swims slowly, but he > always swims left." A Czar, free from these incentives, would be able to > take the best of progressivism and leave the rest behind. > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Duncan Murray < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the detailed email, and yes I'd be happy to help work on > mapping information. > > > > Do you have a link to your Upper Ontology (or work in general - looks > interesting). I still want to have a look at all the current data - it is > surprising that there are so many around. > > > > Thanks, > > Duncan > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Azn A <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's cute Duncan. However, you've missed our Upper Level Ontology which > is almost spot on to the true requirements to implement a unified database. > We're only missing the AI side but that's a side argument for the > rationality to implement a different/more unified base/core referential > integrity system that is more towards the unified field theory but that's > not a requirement until you want a conceptual processing environment for a > brain like processor/agent.. > > > > Anyway, if you're interested in mapping human information to a format that > an AI can read (or in the short term - normal automation software) I might > be interested.. We're working on a new Web (the Concept Web) separable from > the previous Web layer that is computable by machines. OWL / RDF are not > sufficient. In Web 1.0 and 2.0 we were linking documents, e.g. web > documents, files. What is different with OWL / RDF is that we also link > structured data, from relational databases, from RDF databases. But we are > still in the data level. OWL is supposed to bridge the gap between > programming and semantic relations, in practise this has never been > achieved! Web 3.0 has to be differentiated from the current web, it has to > create a distinct layer on top of the existing linked data layer with its > own referencing scheme (from WWW to GGG) that can be resolved with the > current URI scheme. This will have its own way to define and handle terms, > concepts, relations, axioms, rules, the structural components of an > ontology. > > > > I envision a new Web consisting of maybe 35 Web platforms (as the new Web > will be one giant database) covering local knowledge to science. Once phase > 1 is completed (destruction of the old fragmented Web), I plan to roll out > a science Web platform that directs AGI research. The system (something > like IBM waston but much more powerful) will request scientists, etc to > conduct detailed research to discover unknown facts about analyzed Systems. > The system would then conduct detailed research to discover new facts about > Systems and put these facts into the database by itself, even without > interaction with Scientists. That's the kind of thing that would get AGI > moving forward if done right. That would also lead to a revolution in > science ( > http://science.kqed.org/quest/2011/09/26/the-open-science-movement/) > where Scientists, professional and amateur would have secure profiles and > could publish ideas quickly and be on record as the first to come up with > something long before they could get a paper out for peer review. The > pressure to publish here would come not from the science greats but from > the fringe. If some group of amateurs starts using their collective brains > to start mapping out ideas in your area of expertise, you better get all of > your work out in the daylight or they will steal your thunder. Any ideas > you post to someone else' page are there on record, so your part is known > to all. In the past you could have one genius pushing our understanding > because a lot wasn't known. Today, progress is a lot more incremental and > departmental ... One guy spends 5 years and through trial and error he > makes a small discovery. It takes time before other researches integrate > his discovery into their thought and put it to use because everything is > too fragmented and fucked up. The possibilities are endless here. > > > > > > ~Azn A > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Duncan Murray < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for that - I am doing a review on all the upper ontologies I can > find relating to or which might benefit AI development and wanted include > the OpenCog definitions. ( > http://www.acutesoftware.com.au/aikif/ontology.html) > > > > I have written a Python script to export the MindOntology pages into a CSV > file. > > The code is - > https://github.com/acutesoftware/AIKIF/blob/master/AI/ontology/createMindOntology.py > > > and the CSV file is - > https://github.com/acutesoftware/AIKIF/blob/master/AI/ontology/mindOntology.csv > > > > Feel free to use the code, or the CSV file in OpenCog, as I would love to > be able to contribute to this project. > > > > Cheers, > > Duncan > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I believe I created that, way back when, directly as a set of wiki pages... > > ben g > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Duncan Murray < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all! > > I have been reading this group for a while now and am interested in > mapping human information to a format that an AI can read (or in the short > term - normal automation software). > > > > I was wondering if the MindOntology ( > http://wiki.opencog.org/w/MindOntology) is available as a single dataset > (OWL / RDF / text), or is the source currently the set of wiki pages? > > > > Thanks, > > Duncan Murray > > [email protected] > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279>| > 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/303/10514698-9a8cda1e>| > 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/303/5404257-22a42d7f>| > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > ------------------------------ > UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN > > This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer > published on our website at > http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 > 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is > addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the > author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not > use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not > related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's > individual capacity. > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10514698-9a8cda1e> | > 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
