Dorian et. al. gmail, listbox and I are not getting on well. Apologies. With any luck this will work.
As ways of delineating H-AGI become varied and increasingly cogent and compelling and familiar, it occurs to me that at some point writing up and publishing the approach would be worth doing. That doc could form the manifesto for anyone's attempt at this. Its time may have come. I have already tried this. Once in Frontiers in .... can't remember... Neuromorphic something and 'Minds and Machines' have choked on it for over a year. But I never used the 'hybrid' idea. Maybe that will do it. I have a co-author but clearly they couldn't make my colin-esque proposition digestible. :-) Maybe some of us here could be more successful. *H-AGI, a step towards synthetic AGI *sounds like a working title to me. Count me in as a co-author if we want to do that. It would be fantastic if a C-AGI person were an author too. To ensure the gritted teeth of critical opposition are properly represented. Journal suggestions anyone? For those brains that are struggling with the H-AGI distinction and can't see the relevance... The H-AGI approach is untried. Therefore the scientific basis for any claim that H-AGI distinction is non-existent or is unimportant ... are unproved and formally unclear. There seem to be at least 2 people here that have come to the same place from different directions. It's real. The IGI's job is to do the science. There is a reason why it has taken this idea so long to get a toe hold. I am agnostic about the place of operation and the name. The only note from experience: time spent worrying about names is highly correlated with the ultimate non-existence and/or irrelevance of whatever was 'named'. Seen it many times. I actually use it as an indicator of when to bow out. So ... to business. Dorian's approach to commence breathing life into this seems eminently logical. It needs to be tried and to be given the best chance at resulting in something. If it fails to get traction (as history usually depicts it will ... we have to face that possibility) then we have to ensure the attempt teaches us everything it can on the way. Learn from mistakes. Then again it might actually work! That's the thing. You have to pull the big scary red lever to find out. Developing an organisational model interactively on a generic email forum is probably unwieldy. It has to be done in a way that includes all interested parties. So Dorian's web page idea is a good one. We can literally build the institute. As a temporary web structure someplace. To get interest registered, to promote on social media, possibly even crowd-fund? ..... and as a place for the vision to coalesce into something that potential board members might regard as significant in science. So perhaps someone can suggest such a place? Can I suggest the Facebook page might not work so well in this regard. I have participated in what Peter Voss is trying to do in the 'Real AGI' page and while it becomes a place to educate people, it seems less than optimal if you want to build a real entity (as opposed to rummaging in the character of the science that entity would do). I feel strongly that this has to be an organic expression of a group that acquires its future through the enthusiasm of those that want to count their footprints on that unsullied beach of a new idea. Then and only then will those that encounter it feel the energy of it. I know that sounds all new-age space cadet .... but we are humans and that spark is what makes these things worth doing. If we can retask an existing site and hook a discussion forum and other infrastructure to that? I don't know. Some one mentioned an old AGI site someplace? Is that real? Maybe Ben has a suggestion? The links with existing AGI efforts are as important as everything else. This is a hybrid, remember. It'll need a truckload of bleeding-edge software. I am not well enough across the web possibilities as the rest of you (me being the crusty curmudgeon and all). ...Dorian's hit list sounds a great way forward. So ... over to you. Find this beach of ours! Copy an existing institute and customise it to the IGI with empty slots for the Dorian list? Don't be shy. Stick your name in it as a founding enthusiast. I'll shop around and see what I can. Later, when it has a heartbeat of some kind the formal legalities can be added. That side of it is just handlewinding and $. I'll have a go at a first-pass suggestion for that letter and send it through for you to gnaw on. :-) Colin Hales <about to press send and wondering if the gods of listbox broadcast are smiling on me> > > > > > *Board* > > *I lean towards a business model that includes a managed receptiveness to > the views of the academic infrastructure.* > > > > Steps to shape the board > > (i) Probably we wii need a webpage to include all possible IGI members. > > (ii) IGI members can make proposals for the board (business persons, > venture capitalists, bankers, scientists from academia –eg Venter, Jeff > Hawkins, Breazeal,....) > > (iii) We need to write a letter, present our vision and contact any > potential board member, discuss this new opportunity > > (iv) Final step, select the Board of IGI > > Always, we should encourage a better idea of how to shape successfully the > board. > > > > *Being nearly 60 I am realistic about my role in it.* > > > > At least in Australia by 2050 we will have a Colin Hales Institute of > General Intelligence (unfortunately, for Turing it was 30 years later > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_Institute) . It may be Hales-Venter > or Hales-Hawkins, however my feeling is that we will find the right > people today and start IGI tomorrow. > > > Dorian > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Mark Seveland <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | >> 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/303/11721311-20a65d4a> | > 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
