Colin, that is interesting to say you think that long term a hybrid approach might be successful. I think one thing to keep in mind at this juncture is the history of AI, which is a history of people splitting up into separate camps. One of the perennial criticisms about AI cited as grounds for its supposed failure is that it started out with a kind of single effort at Dartmouth, but then split off into camps, most of which never really saw the other as important any longer. So, if there is a lesson in that, it is to not isolate IF general intelligence is the intent. Mike A
On 5/16/15, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry about the previous empty. Phone issue. 10 thumbs. > > My particular flavour of the non-computer approach is irrelevant. I am not > pushing my own at all. > > Robot $ and kind irrelevant. I have the math you speak of. Wrong on both > counts. > > I do not care what kind of NC-AGI arises. All I know is that NC-AGI > important, neglected and needs a champion. Even if I am not involved at the > coal face I will fight for its existence. I do not care who does it or what > kind is the right one. I have my EM field version. Dorian has > neuroelectrodynamics. Person X may have something else. Bring it on. > Any/all. > > My long term expectation is that real AGI will be a hybrid of both. All I > want to do is help see the NC half happens and to foster an appropriate > research environment. > > So please set anything you think you know about me or my approach aside. You > actually know almost nothing and what little that is is irrelevant to what > is happening in this thread. > > Thanks. > > Colin Hales > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Steve Richfield" <[email protected]> > Sent: 17/05/2015 9:10 AM > To: "AGI" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Institute of General Intelligence (IGI) > > Colin, > > > I think your are needlessly introducing your own unique world view into > this, which will probably doom it to failure. Right now it seems clear to me > what the two present stumbling blocks are to AGI progress: > > > 1. The lack of an affordable robotic body to use as a test platform, that > EVERYONE on this list could easily save up their lunch money and buy. > > > 2. The lack of a guiding mathematical basis on which to leverage wet lab > research AND your approach AND present AGI efforts. > > > Without these, your approach seems to be doomed. > > > Steve > =============== > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > > My analysis of the potential for the IGI is continuing. I have thought > about board structure, but that is secondary just now. The main point I > want to make here is how I would see such a thing operate. > > > The future of AGI has two main threads to it: > > > 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) > 2) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) > > > The IGI will be the first place ever that does NC-AGI. C-AGI has had 100% of > all investment and over half a century of activity. This imbalance has to > stop for the good of the entire AGI program. > > > So the idea is that NC-AGI, which was always a possibility and is now more > possible than ever, joins C-AGI as a way towards real AGI, however it turns > out. I cannot and will not discuss the technical conceptuals contrasting > C-AGI and NC-AGI. It will be the job of the IGI to articulate that. This > thread is actually about the formation of an institute that might do it. > > > I offer the following suggestion for the scope of the IGI: > > > 1) The IGI does actual research and development of NC-AGI. The technical > mission is to make new kinds of neuromorphic chips that do model-free AGI, > put them as brains in robots and make a new ecology of NC-AGI-based robot > critters from insect to H+ level. > 2) The IGI establishes a double-blind independent AGI test facility that > _all_ embodied (robotic) AGI solutions, C-AGI and NC-AGI, can use to > formally test candidates. This has nothing whatever to do with Turing tests. > It will design the test regime and develop and test the tests. > 3) The IGI can set about isolating and instigating the practical legal, > social and regulatory mechanisms to do with having a machine ecology join > (or not) the natural ecology. > ========= > As such, it would be ideal if the IGI could be co-located with a C-AGI > institute. The two approaches, side-by side, could then work together in 2) > and 3). With a board that can see the merit in such an institute, and the > right researchers within it, this could be a serious contender for real AGI. > At the very least it would correct an imbalance to AGI that has been in > place for decades. It will champion and give a voice to NC-AGI. > > Currently there are, as far as I can tell, two and only two researchers in > the entire world who can envisage some kind of NC-AGI. > > > Dr Dorian Aur (Ca, USA) > Dr Colin Hales.(Melbourne, Australia) > > > If anyone knows anyone else that might see this potential then I would like > to be put in touch with them. > > That's all I wanted to say at this stage. If I were to be part of this > initiative, then these are my thoughts. I remain enthusiastic about this > potential. > > > Regards, > > > Colin Hales. > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > > > -- > > 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 | Modify Your Subscription > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
