If Watson were front ended with a coherent Chatbot, then it would be the equivalent of SAL in the movie "2010". Right now most Chatbots are incoherent in that they don't maintain an adequate model of the user(s) they interact with, or an adequate conversation history. But if a chatbot were able to retrieve information using a Watson API it would be formidable. ~PM Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:57:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [agi] H-AGI towards S-AGI From: [email protected] To: [email protected]
For AGI, I wonder how General AI has to be in order to be considered AGI. If a AI system can only play chess we would say that is a bit too narrow to be considered AGI. If it can play a bunch of Atari games then certainly this is far more general than being designed to play a single game. Would this be AGI? I don't think you can call something AGI based solely on its results (number of games it can play), this is because i could wire together a bunch of narrow AI's each specifically design for each of the games. For example i could have one for playing chess, a different one for playing breakout, a third for space invaders, and so on and so forth. Then i could have a system that detects which game we are presented with and it could then select the appropriate narrow AI to play the game. The system as a whole would appear to be a general AI based on its results, but of course its essential nature would be that of a narrow AI. As such you can't classify an AI system as AI or AGI solely based on results. The implementation details are needed to make the classification. Does this make sense? On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: watson is as much or more AGI as OpenCOG applying same core to different domains and getting good results for-example jeopardy, cooking and medicine. Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: Ben, very useful survey, excellent key points:1.Training on text based models does not generate AGI - IBM's Watson 2.The essential part of the system that was creating AGI would be my brain, not googleConclusion: Wiring together a bunch of non AGI systems may never generate AGI Mike: "I don't like the way that people create things that are intentionally difficult and known only to the in-group." You are right, we should try to avoid anything that is too specific/specialized (e.g biological engineering pluripotent cells and related topics) it makes little sense in other fields 1. The paper should present our general vision, simple sentences easy to understand in computer science or engineering2. The basic idea is simple - working on a "reduced model" of computation (digital -Turing) may never lead to AGIIn addition to algorithms that can run on digital computers one can use biological building blocks to build a "full model of computation". One can shape and "program" a biological structure and "connected" it with digital computers to develop human like intelligence. It will be the new tool for discovery, far more powerful than any digital system alone.3. At least two phases are needed to construct "a mind" using biological building blocks - see the two step implementation (A &B) they need to be briefly mentioned. Details regarding other sub-steps in biological engineering implementation should make the object of a more specialized paper At this point in time everyone can understand that we need to solve a technological problem. Many academic labs are highly specialized and can be our collaborators. They may have the knowledge however they do not have enough resources and their main goal is not to pursue bigger technological projects ( see similar projects- Manhattan Project -gov, German Rocket von Braun's technology -gov, computer and iPhone Job's technology - private, Venter's technology - private). Why we may need political lobbying? They've strongly misled that our brain can be thoroughly mapped and fully simulated on digital computers Note: The two step implementation is just one way to approach the development of H-AGI On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Mark Seveland <[email protected]> wrote: Just a suggestion. Google+ Meetups are a good way for everyone to meet each other, and in live voice and/or video chat discuss topics. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Dorian et. al., I am having trouble getting time to properly participate here because of family stuff and my other commitments. I'm checking in to acknowledge how encouraging it is to see the activity is ongoing, and the birth of a possible paper that might underpin whatever this IGI initiative turns into. I'd like to focus my efforts on the paper primarily as a way to discover IGI directions. So if you could bear with a patchy contribution from me for a little while it would be greatly appreciated. I have a particularly difficult week ahead of me. There's no huge crashing need for speed here, so I'm hoping slow and steady might be OK. Whatever form this website takes: fantastic. It may only ever be a 'line in the sand'. But it's a significant one in the greater scheme of AGI futures and really good to see after being sidelined for so long. Yay! cheersColin Hales On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: Why don't you just call it "AI" and if somebody asks THEN you can clarify it? I mean, why be arcane about it? One of the reasons I got into AI is because I don't like the way that people create things that are intentionally difficult and known only to the in-group. Now here you go with a boatload of new acronyms, known only to the select tiny group that knows the secret meaning behind it. So, I guess I am getting into Alan Grimes vent space with this. On 5/20/15, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > *Colin et al,* > > > A possible plan for H-AGI towards S-AGI paper > > > > *Hybrid artificial general intelligent systems towards S-AGI* > > > > > > *Introduction* – a short presentation of AI systems and general goal to > build human general intelligence > > > > Why H-AGI? > > - Present different forms of computation , ( particular forms of > computation analog, digital -Turing machines ) > - Computations in the brain (examples of computations that are hardly > replicated on digital computers) > - H-AGI can include all forms of computations, algorithmic / > non-algorithmic, analog, digital,* quantum and classical *since > biological structure is incorporated in the system > > > > *Steps to develop H-AGI* > > > > - A. Build the structure using either natural stem cells or induced > pluripotent cells a three-dimensional vascularized structure, test 3D > printing possibilities > - Shape the structure and control spatial organization of cells > - Detect the need of neurotrophic factors, nutrients and oxygen ...use > nanosensor devices, carbon nanotubes... > - Regulate, control the entire phenomenon using a computer interface, > ability to use combine analog/digital and biophysical computations > > B. Train the hybrid system > > - Enhance bidirectional communication between biological structure and > computers > - Create and use a virtual world to provide accelerated training, use > machine learning, DL, digital/algorithmic AI or AGI if something is > developed on digital systems > - The interactive training system should also shape the evolution of > biological structure, natural language and visual information can be > progressively included > > see details in Can we build a conscious machine, > http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5224 > > > *Goals of H-AGI* > > H-AGI can be seen as a transitional step required to understand which > parts can be fully replicated in a synthetic form to build a more powerful > system, > > · Natural language processing, robotics... > > · Space exploration, colonization..... etc > > · Techniques for therapy (brain diseases, cancer ....) since we will > learn how to shape biological structure > > > > > Dorian > > > PS This brief presentation may also provide an idea about possible > collaboration list 1- list 3 > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > A summary ....we are looking at the idea that there are 2 fundamental >> kinds >> > of putative AGI (1) & (3), and their hybrid (2) that forms a third >> approach >> > as follows: >> > >> > (1) C-AGI computer substrate only. Neuromorphic equivalents of it. >> > (2) H-AGI hybrid of (1) and (3). The inorganic version is a new >> > kind >> > of neuromorphic chip. The organic version has ... erm... organics in >> > it. >> > (3) S-AGI synthetic AGI. organic or inorganic. Natural brain >> > physics >> > only. No computer. >> > >> > (aside: S-AGI just came out of my fingers. I hope this is OK, Dorian!) >> > >> >> This is a cool idea, somewhat mind boggling in its possibilities. >> Cool though! >> >> Personally I would favor something more like "EM-AGI" for >> electromagnetic AGI. I mean, I don't understand the details of the >> approach, only the generalities. But, "S" seems a bit vague/ambiguous >> while EM hits it more or less on target IMHO. >> >> MIke A >> >> >> > Think this way: What we have now is 100% computer. S-AGI is 100% >> > natural >> > physics (organic or inorganic). H-AGI is set somewhere in between. >> > It's >> > the level of computer computation/natural computation that is at issue. >> All >> > are computation. >> > >> > The human brain is a natural version of (3) with a neuronal/astrocyte >> > substrate. (3) has no computer whatever in it. it retains all the >> natural >> > physics (whatever that is). H-AGI targets the inclusion of the >> > essential >> > natural brain physics in the substrate of (2) and to incorporate (1) >> > computer-substrates and software to an extent to be determined. In my >> case >> > an H-AGI would be inorganic. Others see differently. >> > >> > Where you might have a stake in this? >> > >> > The history of AGI can be summed up as an experiment that seeks to see >> > if >> > the role of (1) C-AGI as a brain is fundamentally indistinguishable >> > from >> > (3) S-AGI under all conditions. That is the hypothesis. The 65 year old >> bet >> > that has attracted 100% of the investment to date. H-AGI does not make >> that >> > presupposition and seeks to contrast (1) and (3) in revealing ways that >> > then allow us to speak authoritatively about the (1)/(3) relationship >> > in >> > AGI potential. Only then will we really understand the difference >> > between >> > (1) and (3). So far that difference is entirely and intuition. A good >> one. >> > But only intuition. Its time for that intuition to be turned into >> science. >> > Experiments in (1) have ruled to date. Now we seek to do some (2)... >> > E.E. >> > we have 65 years of 'control' subject. H-AGI builds the first 'test' >> > subject. >> > >> > How about this? >> > >> > What would be super cool is if this mighty AGI beast you intend making >> > could be turned into the brain of a robot. Then we could contrast what >> > it >> > does with what an IGI candidate brain does in an identical robot in the >> > same test. That kind of testing vision (as far off as it may seem) is a >> > potential way your work and the IGI might interface. Which candidate >> robot >> > best encounters radical novelty, without any human >> intervention/involvement >> > whatever? .... is a really good question. To do this test you'd not >> > need >> to >> > reveal anything about its workings. Observed robot behaviour is >> > decisive. >> > >> > It seems to me that whatever venture you plan, it might be wise to keep >> an >> > eye on any (2)/(3) approaches. IGI or not. Because it is directly >> informing >> > expectations of outcomes in (1). We are currently asking the question >> "*If >> > H-AGI were to be championed into existence, what would the first >> > vehicle >> > for that look like?*" If the enthusiasm maintains it will be sketched >> into >> > a web page and we'll see what it tells us and what to do next. It may >> halt. >> > It may go. I don't know. Worth a shot? You bet. >> > >> > With your (1) C-AGI glasses firmly strapped to your head, your wisdom >> > at >> > all stages in this would be well received, whatever the messages. So if >> you >> > have time to keep an eye on happenings, I for one would appreciate it. >> > >> > regards >> > >> > Colin Hales >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks for asking. Haven’t followed the IGI discussions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this about non-computer based approaches to AGI? If so, I don’t >> think >> >> I have anything positive to contribute. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> More generally, non-profit orgs need strong focus and champions. And >> >> specific goals. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Benjamin Kapp [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:23 PM >> >> *To:* AGI >> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Institute of General Intelligence (IGI) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mr. Voss, >> >> >> >> Given your understanding of the AGI community do you believe an IGI >> would >> >> be redundant? Would your organization be open to collaborating with >> >> the >> >> IGI? Do you have any advice for how we could be successful in >> >> starting >> >> up >> >> this organization? Perhaps you would be open to being a member of the >> >> board? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Not something that can be adequately covered in a few words, but…. >> “We’re >> >> building a fully integrated, top-down & bottom-up, real-time, adaptive >> >> knowledge (& skill) representation, learning and reasoning engine. >> >> We’re >> >> using a combination of graph representation and NN techniques overlaid >> >> with >> >> fuzzy, adaptive rule systems” – ha! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here again are links for some clues: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.kurzweilai.net/essentials-of-general-intelligence-the-direct-path-to-agi >> >> >> >> http://www.realagi.com/index.html >> >> >> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/RealAGI/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Benjamin Kapp [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mr. Voss, >> >> >> >> Since you are the founder I'm certain you know what agi-3's >> >> methodology >> >> is. In a few words (maybe more?) could you share with us what that >> >> is? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> *>*http://www.agi-3.com They just glue together anything and >> everything >> >> that works. >> >> >> >> Actually, no. We have a very specific theory of AGI and architecture >> >> >> >> *Peter Voss* >> >> >> >> *Founder, AGI Innovations Inc.* >> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee>| >> >> 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/303/231420-b637a2b0>| >> 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/303/11943661-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/303/17795807-366cfa2a >> 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 > 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/303/11721311-20a65d4a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Regards, Mark Seveland AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription Sent from my Android device with Emails. AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
