I'd say this gal is getting close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAnHjuTQF3M
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Dorian et. al. > Good to be getting into this. I have a sense of responsibility to those > that may seek to be involved. We have to get this right .. or as least as > close as we can. > > This framework: > > 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) - digital computers are excellent tools, > however compared to the real brain they provide only a “reduced model of > computation” . > > 2) Hybrid-based AGI (H-AGI) to integrate wet lab research, current > AGI efforts, build a "full model of computation" that can be reshaped and > provide more tips how to build a more synthetic AGI . This intermediary > step can bring funding from all brain initiatives and have huge impact > on health/medicine and therapy. > > 3) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) , the final step > > This is excellent. I was always headed to 2). I just wish I had expressed > it this way earlier! Thanks Dorian. > > The brain is a natural version of (3). Clearly we are looking at a new > approach that, via something like an IGI, explores the possibility that > H-AGI is a step towards (3) and why. Such an approach merely recognizes > that we do not know which of the three (or combos of them) lead to what AGI > potential. This initiative represents an inclusive expansion in approaches > to AGI. > > *Board* > I lean towards a business model that includes a managed receptiveness to > the views of the academic infrastructure. > > NOTE: I actually have a long history in business. Process control/machine > automation. I have started and run companies and filled them full of folk. > But I discovered its not my natural habitat. But I can do it at gunpoint. I > even got lawyers to put together a constitution for a research institute > once. I realised it would never get off the ground because of me not being > a scientist. All I had was an idea. The same idea that I bring here today. > So I became a scientist. Now I think I can do this. But I would rather > someone else did the nuts and bolts. I definitely shouldn't be > administering it. But I know how to set up and be enthusiastic about stuff > that someone else can run. I have the capacity to ensure the institute > deals with IP issues (or to decide not to). But if I was running such a > thing I would not hire me to inhabit the role because it's not really 'me'. > What I prefer to do is science magic in the back room, out of sight. That > is my natural habitat. I have discovered that. But if I have to put that > old hat back on .... I will. > > I also realise that this is not about me. This is about a new approach. I > may have to be happy just to foster it and set it free and accept that is > my part in it. Being nearly 60 I am realistic about my role in it. Build > the fire. Strike it. Let the youngsters loose. Make it fun. > > So I see the practical aspects of establishment of an IGI to be a little > less of a problem than Dorian might think. > > The meat of this? We have what Craig Venter has in terms of > a novel solution to an old problem. That idea also has at least > the potential impact of the human genome. What we don't have is Craig > Venter's money. I wish. I can tell you now that if I did I'd already be > doing all of this. There would already be an IGI and it would already have > robots doing things. Like Venter we do not need anyone's permission to do > this. This has been extremely frustrating for me. > > Yet .. I have a very honed appreciation of the academic approach. I choose > the business way forward because the process is 'solve a single pesky > problem' oriented. I am here to solve a problem. If I can't do that then I > will not be doing science at all. There is a history of 'one trick > scientists'. That's me. Discoverer of the neutrino, inventor of the blue > LED etc etc. Pigheaded stubbornness in pursuit of a single goal. > Additionally, if, like the original inventor of fire, a problem was solved > without knowing formally how (that comes after) then that is fine. In the > history of science the 'theory follows practice' model is my approach. AGI > is strangely under-represented in this approach. This problem could be > solved without any publishing whatever and without any theory.. Just by > enthusiasm and resources. But I would rather it find some sort of > equilibrium between the two extremes of academia/business. Yet another > hybrid, but with a business-structured approach. Like what Venter did. > Maybe the HTM progenitor.... Jeff Hawkins ... might see the IGI as > interesting? There are a bevy of the potentially interested to seek. > > Investors will look more favourably on the IGI as an IP factory rather > than a scientific paper factory. The reverse is the case for the academic > establishment. So we have to throw the dart and then maybe draw the > bullseye where it hits and sticks. That balance is a mystery to me. > > Example: I have been inside a $50,000,000 bionic eye project based on > academic-centric activity. Despite all that activity, the actual result is > lots of science knowledge, lots of new infrastructure, skill base .... and > an actual commercial outcome that is a too-late, too little camel designed > by an academic mandate to design and build a horse. I say that with > respect, knowing personally the head professor and involved with a paper > with him as we speak. (Thinks ... must get back to that). It doesn't work > well as a route to timely, appropriate tech or commerce outcomes. They > think they had success because of "number of patents" KPI. I want success > "solved the problem". Imagine what we could have done with $50,000,000. > Makes me grumpy. > > Unlike the bionic eye, H-AGI already has the tech infrastructure to > succeed. It's over-prepared through inattention as an option. The only > thing missing is a cultural recognition of a path that was always there but > never followed. It's not like we are even being radical in the deep sense > of science practice! It's a reversion to history. It's likely to have an > accelerated uptake in the IP department. > > We can kick business oriented structure ideas about a bit here if you > like. And potential people? Have a go! > > We are learning what it is like to encounter this possibility as a group, > together. We have a certain responsibility to do the best we can. First > footsteps on a new landscape and all. That sort of thing. I have reverted > to my opening remark... so I guess I am done! > > regards > > Colin Hales > > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steve “Without these, Colin approach seems to be doomed.” >> >> >> >> A good point that's why we need to explicitly introduce the intermediate >> step (2) and we can have everything under one roof (integrate not divide) >> >> >> >> 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) - digital computers are excellent >> tools, however compared to the real brain they provide only a “reduced >> model of computation” >> >> 2) Hybrid -based AGI (H-AGI) to integrate wet lab research, >> current AGI efforts, build a "full model of computation" that can be >> reshaped and provide more tips how to build a more synthetic AGI . This >> intermediary step can bring funding from all brain initiatives and >> have huge impact on health/medicine and therapy. >> >> 3) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) , the final step >> >> >> >> *Why a board of directors?* >> >> >> >> One may pursue two different models: >> >> *(A)Academic model: * Defending the value of information written in the >> textbooks is a responsibility of any academic scholar, so changing/ >> challenging anything becomes extremely difficult – see the initial >> acceptance of Deep Learning models ten years ago >> >> *(B)Business model: * works in many cases better than the academic >> model in shaping new things, see Tesla, Edison,Ford, Marconi and more >> recently Craig Venter. Fast gains are required to maintain the business >> model running. >> >> >> >> The board of directors should mainly take care of AGI business, >> marketing strategy for any attempt made in (1)(2) and (3). Step 2 can help >> the AGI business . >> >> Selecting the future board members is probably the most important task >> for IGI, Ben and many others can provide more details about how difficult >> is to maintain AGI business today. Chip implants, Mercury colonization.... >> and similar topics can all be thoroughly discussed after IGI is up and >> running >> >> >> We need to shape IGI based on a business model, so please feel, free to >> make any reliable proposals to build the infrastructure >> >> >> Dorian >> >> >> PS Neither Colin nor I are businessman and we do not make any attempt >> to be members of the board >> >> >> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 09:48:03AM +1000, colin hales 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. >>> >>> okay so obviously you are the champion. >>> Why is it important? >>> >>> you guys have been talking about it for a week now, >>> and I still have no idea why you think it has value. >>> >>> like lets be honest here, anything that isn't a computer or >>> technology is biology. so what you are really talking about >>> (seems to me) is biological-AGI, or connecting a vat of >>> brain-cells to a computer. >>> this has been done, and can play simple video games. >>> but so can deep neuronets on computers. >>> >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> okay so do you have some kind of proprietary secret approach? >>> >>> I was thinking you can Dorian can sign an NDA and then no one >>> will ever know about anything you guys do. >>> >>> personally I think that there are a lot of potential ethical >>> issues with using biological mediums for computation, also they >>> aren't particularly scalable or portable. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> AGI >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a >>> 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-20a65d4a> | >> 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/303/27079473-66e47b26> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Regards, Mark Seveland ------------------------------------------- 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
