Steve Richfield wrote:
Matt,
On 12/6/08, *Matt Mahoney* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
--- On Sat, 12/6/08, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Internet AGIs are the technology of the future, and always will
be. There will NEVER EVER in a million years be a thinking Internet
silicon intelligence that will be able to solve substantial
real-world problems based only on what exists on the Internet. I
think that my prior email was pretty much a closed-form proof of
that. However, there are MUCH simpler methods that work TODAY, given
the metadata that is presently missing from the Internet.
The internet has about 10^14 to 10^15 bits of knowledge as
searchable text. AGI requires 10^17 to 10^18 bits.
This presumes that there isn't some sort of "agent" at work that filters
a particular important type of information, so that even a googol of
text wouldn't be any closer. As I keep explaining, that agent is there
and working well, to filter the two things that I keep mentioning.
Hence, you are WRONG here.
If we assume that the internet doubles every 1.5 to 2 years with
Moore's Law, then we should have enough knowledge in 15-20 years.
Unfortunately, I won't double my own postings, and few others will
double their own output. Sure, there will be some additional enlargement
of the Internet, but its growth is linear once past its introduction,
which we are, and short of exponential growth of population, which is on
a scale of a century or so. In short, Moore's law simply doesn't apply
here, any more than 9 women can make a baby in a month.
However, much of this new knowledge is video, so we also need to
solve vision and speech along with language.
Which of course has been stymied by the lack of metadata - my point all
along.
> While VERY interesting, your proposal appears to leave the
following important questions unanswered:
> 1. How is it an AGI? I suppose this is a matter of definitions.
It looks to me more like a protocol.
AGI means automating the economy so we don't have to work. It means
not just solving the language and vision problems, but also training
the equivalent of 10^10 humans to make money for us. After hardware
costs come down, custom training for specialized roles will be the
major expense. I proposed surveillance as the cheapest way for AGI
to learn what we want. A cheaper alternative might be brain
scanning, but we have not yet developed the technology. (It will be
worth US$1 quadrillion if you can do it).
Or another way to answer your question, AGI is a lot of dumb
specialists plus an infrastructure to route messages to the right
experts.
I suspect that your definition here is unique. Perhaps other on this
forum would like to proclaim which of us is right/wrong.
Since you ask, the two of you seem to be competing for the prize of
largest number of most diabolically nonsensical comments in the shortest
amount of time.
You *did* ask.
I thought that
the definition more or less included an intelligent *_computer_*.
> 2. As I explained earlier on this thread, all human-human
languages have severe semantic limitations, such that (applying this
to your porposal), only very rarely will there ever exist an answer
that PRECISELY answers a question, so some sort of "acceptable
error" must go into the equation. In the example you used in your
paper, Jupiter is NOT the largest planet that is known, as the
astronomers have identified larger planets in other solar systems.
There may be a good solution to this, e.g. provide the 3 best
answers that are semantically disjoint.
People communicate in natural language 100 to 1000 times faster than
any artificial language, in spite of its supposed limitations.
Remember that the limiting cost is transferring knowledge from human
brains to AGI, 10^17 to 10^18 bits at 2 bits per second per person.
Unfortunately, when societal or perceptual filters are involved, there
will remain HUGE holes in even an infinite body of data. Of course, our
society has its problems precisely because of those holes, so more data
doesn't necessarily get you any further.
As for Jupiter, any question you ask is going to get more than one
answer. This is not a new problem.
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+largest+planet%3F
In my proposal, peers compete for reputation and have a financial
incentive to provide useful information to avoid being blocked or
ignored in an economy where information has negative value.
Great! At least that way, I know that the things I see will be good
Christian content.
This is why it is important for an AGI protocol to provide for
secure authentication.
> 3. Your paper addresses question answering, which as I have
explained here in the past, is a much lower form of art than is
problem solving, where you simply state an unsatisfactory situation
and let the computer figure out why things are as they are and how
to improve them.
Problem solving pre-dates AGI by decades. We know how to solve
problems in many narrow domains. The problem I address is finding
the right experts.
Hmmm, an even higher form, but will it work? In my experience of solving
a few cases having supposedly "incurable" illnesses, and where I needed
expert help to solve them, the experts I needed and found had VERY
narrow expertise. In one case, the cure seemed obvious - but would it
kill the patient? The ONLY apparently "expert" I could find was a doctor
who had lost his license by giving people the same sort of stuff - and
only killing one of them. In this game of "you bet your life", I had to
decide on the basis of THIS guy's words. If ever anyone would get
"filtered out" on the basis of poor credentials, this guy was IT.
Anyway, he said that my cure wouldn't work, but that the drug
wouldn't hurt the patient. The cure worked.
You seem to be making the SAME newbie AI error that others here keep
accusing me of making, namely, of making over-broad claims and
extrapolations for a basically sound core concept. You have an easily
testable concept that could easily be implemented on a USENET group with
clever client software, or alternatively and with less ability to scale,
on a web site with the postings all tucked away in a giant knowledge
base. In the beginning, you could announce a very limited domain and
crunch the data with string searches just to test the user interfaces, etc.
I like your core concept, but your extrapolations are based on some
really flaky assumptions as noted above. Success can only come by
"facing your demons", slaying the ones you can, and finding ways of
living with the ones you can's slay.
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription [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/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
