Interesting. Is there any good knowledge about how episodic memory is organized in bird brains?
We need to beef up OpenCog's episodic memory shortly, so it's a topic on my mind... OpenBirdBrain? ;D -- ben On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:06 AM, ARAKAWA Naoya <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Benjamin & al. > > I'm reacting to the word 'birds' (semi-automatically :-) as I'm > a fan of bird (or corvidae) intelligence. > E.g., > http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455481 > http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sabine_Tebbich/publication/241274123_Social_manipulation_causes_cooperation_in_keas/links/00b7d528aeb185cda5000000.pdf > > Somehow their intelligence seems specialized in the time domain > (planning, episodic memory, etc.). > > As for anatomical comparison, I found this article interesting: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2507884/ > > Birds seem to have the pallium instead of the neo-cortex. > > I wonder if the Prefrontal Cortex Basal Ganglia Working Memory hypothesis > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_Cortex_Basal_Ganglia_Working_Memory , > which may explain temporal information processing of mammals > to a certain extent, also applies to birds... > > -- Naoya Arakawa > > 2015-05-23 3:25, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was thinking about birds today.. It seems as though they have high >> selection pressure to have light weight brains. And as such only the most >> essential parts of the brain would be retained through evolution. I wonder >> if anatomical comparison between birds and other kinds of brains could shed >> light on those aspects of the brain which are (and perhaps just as >> importantly are not) absolutely critical for an AGI to have? Perhaps this >> could help us prioritize which aspects of the mind we focus our efforts on >> creating first? Thoughts? >> >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> 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 google >> Conclusion: 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 engineering >> 2. The basic idea is simple - working on a "reduced model" of computation >> (digital -Turing) may never lead to AGI >> In 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! >> >> cheers >> Colin 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 > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw ------------------------------------------- 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
