I'd like to butt in. I think it's nice that you have ideas that may one day be included in HTM/NuPIC, and will somehow culminate in some mystical "Human-like AI", but honestly, the details and proof are significantly lacking. This should be obvious from the questions posed in this tread, and the lack of substance in the replies. I believe that HTM could become something powerful, but not without detailing how it will become that. Thus, I believe it might be beneficial for the leadership of Numenta to list some things for the community:
- What are the high-level, general details of what HTM can do right now? I.E. Spatial Pooling, Invariance, Generalization, etc. (Of course backed up with working examples, and more than the Hot-Gym example please) - What is currently being added to HTM/NuPIC, aside from just hot-fixes and patches? - What is in store for the future? A timeline of additions would be helpful, and not about what code features you're adding, but what changes will be made to the algorithm itself. Any fool can add some Javascript bindings or what-not, but the theoretical, neurologically-based pieces are what will make HTM truly capable of human-like intelligence. I'm sure that people like David are going to respond with something like, "Well they're working on it, Jeff is figuring it out :-)", but honestly that is useless to the community. We need solid goals, not hand-waving. Otherwise this community will start falling apart at the seams (and that process had already begun, given the things being said on Gitter). Julian Samaroo Manager of Information Technology BluePrint Pathways, LLC (516) 993-1150 On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Chandan Maruthi <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason many of us are part of this community is that the Nupic thought > process seems right. Jeff's approach to theoretical neuroscience , seems > fundamental in nature ., Its understanding and modelling of the neurons and > the layers of Neo-cortex , seem close to what we know of the human brain. > Its assumptions of action potentials, prediction and SDRs seem logical to > how the biological brain seems to work. > > Are we there yet ? No. > > The algorithms are evolving, Swarming is an engineering shortcut , and > many other things like sensori-motor , storage and retrieval etc are still > evolving . And yes, the examples are also quite bare. > > So, as of today, you may argue that there are other AI methods that can > beat Nupic . And you will be able to prove this right. > > That does not matter to most folks in this form, its a matter of time > before this stuff gets real. And its coming . > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Dillon Bender <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> <John> "And I think we'll have to work our way through the whole animal >> kingdom to get a humanoid robot working." >> >> If what you mean is that researchers should start with building simple >> organisms and then bolt on the more recently evolved systems, then I think >> this is false. The human brain contains the entirety of non-mammal to >> mammal evolution, so there is no reason to model non-mammals. >> >> I think you have missed out on Numenta's current research goals to work >> sensorimotor into CLA theory, because they realized before you that >> intelligence "needs to be embodied with sensory-motor loop at the core of >> its functionality." They have stated many times that the previous version >> of the theory modeled L2/3 of the cortex, and now adding L4 (and soon L5) >> will help close the sensorimotor loop. >> >> - Dillon >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nupic [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John >> Blackburn >> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:55 AM >> To: Dillon Bender >> Subject: Re: Response to Jeff Hawkins interview. >> >> Sorry to reopen this thread, I missed it! David, I wanted to comment on >> what you said on Facebook: >> >> 2.) For the first time in human history, we have an algorithm which >> models activity in the neocortex and performs with true intelligence >> exactly **how** the brain does it (its the HOW that is truly important >> here). ...and by the way, this was also contributed by Jeff Hawkins and >> Numenta. >> >> "performs with true intelligence" is a pretty bold claim. If this is the >> case, how come there are no very convincing examples of HTM working with >> human like intelligence? The Hotgym example is nice but it is really no >> better than what could be achieved with many existing neural networks. Echo >> state networks have been around for years and can make temporal predictions >> quite well. I recently presented some time sequence data relating to a >> bridge to this forum but HTM did not succeed in modelling this (ESNs worked >> much better). So outside of Hotgym, what really compelling demos do you >> have? I've been away for a while so maybe I missed something... >> >> I am also rather concerned HTM needs swarming before it can model >> anything. Isn't that "cheating" in a way? It seems the HTM is rather >> fragile and needs a lot of help. The human brain does not have this luxury >> it just has to cope with whatever data it gets. >> >> I'm also not convinced the neocortex is everything as Jeff Hawkins >> thinks. I seriously doubt the bulk of the brain is just scaffolding. >> I've been told birds have no neocortex but are capable of very >> intelligent behaviour including constructing tools. Meanwhile I don't see >> any AI robot capable of even ant-like intelligence. (ants are >> amazing!) Has anyone even constructed a robot based on HTM? >> >> Personally I don't think a a disembodied computer can ever be intelligent >> (not even ant-like intelligence). IMO a robot (and it must BE a robot) >> needs to be embodied with sensory-motor loop at the core of its >> functionality to start behaving like an animal. (animals are the only >> things we know that show intelligence: clouds don't, volcanos don't, >> computers don't). And I think we'll have to work our way through the whole >> animal kingdom to get a humanoid robot working. >> >> John. >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:17 PM, cogmission (David Ray) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > You're probably right :-) >> > >> > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, I agree. Except for the part about checking up on us. As i >> >> mentioned before, indifference to us seems to me to be more the >> >> default than caring about us. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/25/2015 5:03 PM, cogmission (David Ray) wrote: >> >> >> >> Let me try and think this through. Only in the context of scarcity >> >> does the question of AGI **or** us come about. Where there is no >> >> scarcity, I think an AGI will just go about its business - peeking in >> >> from time to time to make sure we're doing ok. Why in a universe >> >> where it can go anywhere it wants and produce infinite energy and not >> >> be bound by our planet, would a super-super intelligent being even be >> >> obsessed over us, when it could merely go someplace else? I honestly >> >> thing that is the way it will be. (and maybe is already!) >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Forgive me David, but these are very loose definitions, and i've >> >>> lost track of how they relate back to what an AGI will think about >> >>> humanity. But to use your terms - hopefully accurately - what if the >> >>> AGI satisfies its sentient need for "others" by creating other AGIs, >> >>> ones that it can love and appreciate? I doubt humans would ever be >> >>> up such a task, unless 1) as pets, or 2) with cybernetic improvements. >> >>> >> >>> On 5/25/2015 4:37 PM, David Ray wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Observation is the phenomenon of distinction, in the domain of >> language. >> >>> The universe consists of two things, content and context. Content >> >>> depends on its boundaries in order to exist. It depends on what it >> >>> is not for it's being. Context is the space for things to be, though >> >>> it is not quite space because space is yet another thing. It has no >> >>> boundaries and it cannot be arrived at by assembling all of its >> content. >> >>> >> >>> Ideas; love, hate, our sense of who we are, our histories what we >> >>> know to be true all of those are content. Context is what allows for >> >>> that stuff to be. And all of it lives in language without which there >> would be nothing. >> >>> There maybe would be a "drift" but we wouldn't know about it and we >> >>> wouldn't be able to observe it. >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>> On May 25, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> You lost me. You seem to be working with definitions of >> >>> "observation" and "space for thinking" that i'm unaware of. >> >>> >> >>> On 5/25/2015 4:14 PM, David Ray wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Matthew L., >> >>> >> >>> It isn't a thought. It is there before observation or thoughts or >> >>> thinking. It actually is the space for thinking to occur - it is the >> >>> context that allows for thought. We bring it to the table - it is >> >>> there before we are (ontologically speaking). (It being this sense >> >>> of integrity/wholeness) >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>> On May 25, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Goodness. I thought we agreed that an AGI would not think like humans. >> >>> And besides, "love" doesn't feel like something i want to depend on >> >>> as obvious in a machine. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 5/25/2015 3:50 PM, David Ray wrote: >> >>> >> >>> If I can take this conversation into yet a different direction. >> >>> >> >>> I think we've all been dancing around The question of what belies >> >>> the generation of morality or how will an AI derive its sense of >> >>> ethics? Of course initially there will be those parameters that are >> >>> programmed in - but eventually those will be gotten around. >> >>> >> >>> There has been a lot of research into this actually - though it's >> >>> not common knowledge it is however knowledge developed over the >> >>> observation of millions of people. >> >>> >> >>> The universe and all beings along the gradient of sentience observe >> >>> (albeit perhaps unconsciously), a sense of what I will call >> >>> integrity or "wholeness". We'd like to think that mankind steered >> >>> itself through the ages toward notions of gentility and societal >> >>> sophistication; but it didn't really. The idea that a group or >> >>> different groups devised a grand plan to have it turn out this way is >> totally preposterous. >> >>> >> >>> What is more likely is that there is a natural order to things and >> >>> that is motion toward what works for the whole. I can't prove any of >> >>> this but internally we all know when it's missing or when we are not >> >>> in alignment with it. This ineffable sense is what love is - it's >> concern for the whole. >> >>> >> >>> So I say that any truly intelligent being, by virtue of existing in >> >>> a substrate of integrity will have this built in and a super >> >>> intelligent being will understand this - and that is ultimately the >> >>> best chance for any single instance to survive is for the whole to >> survive. >> >>> >> >>> Yes I know immediately people want to cite all the aberrations and >> >>> of course yes there are aberrations just as there are mutations but >> >>> those aberrations our reactions to how a person is shown love during >> >>> their development. >> >>> >> >>> Like I said I can't prove any of this but eventually it will bear >> >>> itself out and we will find it to be so in the future. >> >>> >> >>> You can be skeptical if you want to but ask yourself some questions. >> >>> Why is it that we all know when it's missing >> >>> (fairness/justice/integrity)? Why is it that we develop open source >> >>> software and free software? Why is it that despite our greed and >> >>> insecurity society moves toward freedom and equality for everyone? >> >>> >> >>> One more question. Why is it that the most advanced philosophical >> >>> beliefs cite that where we are located as a phenomenological event, >> >>> is not in separate bodies? >> >>> >> >>> I know this kind of talk doesn't go over well in this crowd of >> >>> concrete thinkers but I know that there is some science somewhere >> that backs this up. >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>> On May 25, 2015, at 2:12 PM, vlab <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Small point: Even if they did decide that our diverse intelligence >> >>> is worth keeping around (having not already mapped it into silicon) >> >>> why would they need all of us. Surely 10% of the population would >> >>> give them enough 'sample size' to get their diversity ration, heck >> maybe 1/10 of 1% would be >> >>> enough. They may find that we are wasting away the planet (oh, not >> maybe, >> >>> we are) and the planet would be more efficient and they could have >> >>> more energy without most of us. (Unless we become 'copper tops' as >> >>> in the Matrix movie). >> >>> >> >>> On 5/25/2015 2:40 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Matthew, >> >>> >> >>> You touch upon the right point. Intelligence which can self-improve >> >>> could only come about by having an appreciation for intelligence, so >> >>> it's not going to be interested in destroying diverse sources of >> >>> intelligence. We represent a crap kind of intelligence to such an AI >> >>> in a certain sense, but one which it itself would rather communicate >> >>> with than condemn its offspring to have to live like. If these >> >>> things appear (which looks inevitable) and then they kill us, many >> >>> of them will look back at us as a kind of "lost civilisation" which >> they'll struggle to reconstruct. >> >>> >> >>> The nice thing is that they'll always be able to rebuild us from the >> >>> human genome. It's just a file of numbers after all. >> >>> >> >>> So, we have these huge threats to humanity. The AGI future is the >> >>> only reversible one. >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> Fergal Byrne >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >> >>> >> >>> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >> >>> https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >> >>> >> >>> Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: >> >>> http://euroclojure.com/2014/ >> >>> and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com >> >>> >> >>> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >> >>> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - >> >>> https://github.com/fergalbyrne >> >>> >> >>> e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 Join the quest for >> >>> Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org Formerly of Adnet >> >>> [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I think Jeff underplays a couple of points, the main one being the >> >>>> speed at which an AGI can learn. Yes, there is a natural limit to >> >>>> how much experimentation in the real world can be done in a given >> >>>> amount of time. But we humans are already going beyond this with, >> >>>> for example, protein folding simulations, which speeds up the >> >>>> discovery of new drugs and such by many orders of magnitude. Any >> >>>> sufficiently detailed simulation could massively narrow down the >> >>>> amount of real world verification necessary, such that new >> >>>> discoveries happen more and more quickly, possibly at some point >> >>>> faster than we know the AGI is doing them. An intelligence >> >>>> explosion is not a remote possibility. The major risk here is what >> Eliezer Yudkowsky pointed out: not that the AGI is evil or something, but >> that it is indifferent to humanity. >> >>>> No one yet goes out of their way to make any form of AI care about >> >>>> us (because we don't yet know how). What if an AI created >> >>>> self-replicating nanobots just to prove a hypothesis? >> >>>> >> >>>> I think Nick Bostrom's book is what got Stephen, Elon, and Bill all >> >>>> upset. I have to say it starts out merely interesting, but gets to >> >>>> a dark place pretty quickly. But he goes too far in the other >> >>>> direction, at the same time easily accepting that superinteligences >> >>>> have all manner of cognitive skill, but at the same time can't >> >>>> fathom the how humans might not like the idea of having our brain's >> >>>> pleasure centers constantly poked, turning us all into smiling >> idiots (as i mentioned here: >> >>>> http://blog.serotoninsoftware.com/so-smart-its-stupid). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 5/25/2015 2:01 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Just one last idea in this. One thing that crops up every now and >> >>>> again in the Culture novels is the response of the Culture to >> >>>> Swarms, which are self-replicating viral machines or organisms. >> >>>> Once these things start consuming everything else, the AIs (mainly >> >>>> Ships and Hubs) respond by treating the swarms as a threat to the >> >>>> diversity of their Culture. They first try to negotiate, then >> >>>> they'll eradicate. If they can contain them, they'll do that. >> >>>> >> >>>> They do this even though they can themselves withdraw from real >> >>>> spacetime. They don't have to worry about their own survival. They >> >>>> do this simply because life is more interesting when it includes all >> the rest of us. >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards >> >>>> >> >>>> Fergal Byrne >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >> >>>> >> >>>> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >> >>>> https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >> >>>> >> >>>> Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: >> >>>> http://euroclojure.com/2014/ >> >>>> and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com >> >>>> >> >>>> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >> >>>> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - >> >>>> https://github.com/fergalbyrne >> >>>> >> >>>> e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 Join the quest for >> >>>> Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org Formerly of Adnet >> >>>> [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, cogmission (David Ray) >> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This was someone's response to Jeff's interview (see here: >> >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/fareedzakaria/posts/10152703985901330) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Please read and comment if you feel the need... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>> David >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> With kind regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> David Ray >> >>>>> Java Solutions Architect >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cortical.io >> >>>>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >> >>>>> >> >>>>> [email protected] >> >>>>> http://cortical.io >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> With kind regards, >> >> >> >> David Ray >> >> Java Solutions Architect >> >> >> >> Cortical.io >> >> Sponsor of: HTM.java >> >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://cortical.io >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > With kind regards, >> > >> > David Ray >> > Java Solutions Architect >> > >> > Cortical.io >> > Sponsor of: HTM.java >> > >> > [email protected] >> > http://cortical.io >> >> > > > -- > Regards > Chandan Maruthi > >
