Goodness. I have to tell you, Colin, your style of discourse just SOUNDS so insane and off-base, it requires constant self-control on my part to look past that and focus on any interesting ideas that may exist amidst all the peculiarity!!
And if **I** react that way, others must react that way more strongly, because I'm rather tolerant of wackiness of most sorts... So, I must suggest that if you want folks to take your ideas seriously, you should try to find different ways of expressing them... ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Mike Tintner wrote: > > Colin:The part of my idea that freaks everyone out is that there is no > programming involved. You can adjust the firmware settings for certain > intrinsic properties of the dynamics of the EM fields. But none of these > things correspond in any direct way to 'knowledge' or intelligence. The > chips (will) do what brain material does, but without all the bio-overheads. > > If I remember right, you're embodying the objection of a comment there, > which said basically: "but the brain is just firmware and data - there is no > software." Well,. this dynamic approach is potentially fine and exciting. > But as exposition it suffers from the lack of an example. How will your > machine first a) perceive objects in the world, (even if it's an artificial > world), then b) associate responses to those objects, and c) choose between > alternative responses - all *without* software? (The basics of > intelligence). I'm not asking for the whole theory, just your v. basic idea > of how your firmware approach will begin to produce an intelligent response > without prior guidance. Without that, people clearly won't "get the idea" as > you suggest. (De Bono offers some such idea somewhere - The Mechanism of > Mind, I think). > > P.S. I don't believe your thesis that a "cane toad killer" has its > "learning capability" switched off. That's the sort of thing I expect from > ethologists who treat animal behaviours as if they're completely wired in. > But I would think any roboticist would appreciate that that's impossible - > no matter how restricted the repertoire of an animal, if it's living in the > real world, it will continually confront variations on its problem-solving - > cane toads say in unusual places and positions - that demand a fresh > adaptive response and learning. > > > The point is very subtle. This is how product deployment occurs. > > I have an 'empty *but supercharged* AGI' at my 'factory'. > I hook it to a 'cane toad killer' body. > We get the basic physiology of motions sorted. > Then....I teach it to be a cane toad killer. > In it's supercharged state it'll *also be able to learn maths and really > bad tennis!* > But I don't teach it that. > I put it through 'cane toad killer boot camp'. > > When it can cope with all manner of field (as in Australian bush) -based > novelty associated with being a cane toad killer able to sniff out cane > toads .... then I clamp down on those areas of brain dynamics that mean it > can rapidly acquire new knowledge in other areas . All existing knowledge, > the dynamics of being a cane toad killer - these will remain. Nothing you > can do to the robot will enable further learning. This will be mission-fatal > for some cane toad killers who, say, fail to recognise very novel threats. > Just like real cane toads don;t recognise the threat of the motor car tyres. > I can teach the CTK to avoid traffic. > > This 'nobbling' is quite plausible in the chip architecture. It's what > happens in nervous systems. You can't just 'flip s switch' to turn on the > advanced learning. The delivered hardware itself will be constructed to be a > cane toad killer and nothing else. I download and 'burn' a specific > version/subset of the chip which is 100% cane toad killer and is unable to > become anything else for the same reason cane toads can't learn maths. > > Meanwhile I go on to the next project for the '*supercharged* AGI'. Say... > the 'smart weed killer' that lives with farmers and knows exactly what a > weed looks like, eats it into a DNA-dead state and then shits it into the > farmer's soil. Release a small flock of these into a field... no more > chemical fertiliser. They can't reproduce. They return to base if they are > sick (or their associates carry them back). > > We only need 1 'supercharged' AGI. It will have to cooperate with us to > create these little beasties. > > You are perfectly right that existing robotics experts will say the kind of > learning is impossible. For existing robots that's true. But then I'm not > having anything to do with existing robots, am I? > > Another favourite application for me "the incorruptable and relentlessly > honourable company". That it, a 'legal entity' incorprated literally to > inhabit the role of a company. It literally 'feels' the balance sheet and > revenue statements. It panics about cash flows. Feels extatic when profit is > good. No longer do we need 'rules of incorporation'. The company literally > IS the AGI. If the company "goes bad" you take it out and shoot it. The > process of giving birth to a real company is literally giving birth to s > specialist AGI - the actual company itself attends board meetings... fun eh! > The hard question - do you invite it to the coporate dance night? He he. > > cheers, > colin hales > > ------------------------------ > *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 > <http://www.listbox.com/> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [email protected] "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx ------------------------------------------- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
