Julian, Alghough I have some critiques about Numenta development process, I think many critiques here are unfair. Numenta has 6 to 8 guys working hard everyday to provide algorithms which everyone can enjoy, and this for FREE. Although this, remember that it is a company that aims gain, it is not football team trying please crying cheers.
Jeff and his Numenta co-owners have invested money and time in an approach that in their vision mimics the brain. I don't agree with some things of such vision, but I agree with most of them. Because this I'm here, cause I believe in the work as whole. I sincerely don't think that now is the time to measure HTM with other concurrent approachs, I think it's time to work. If you believe in the approach, good, then help us to create examples/tools to demonstrate real applications, improve the algorithms, etc, but if you don't believe, sorry for I will say but maybe you should go to a community of a technology that better serve your aspirations. David On 30 June 2015 at 12:34, Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, i've seen that, and i was very excited when i first heard about it. > But note that within it is described as, "how does *cortex* control > behaviour?". I think SMF is a very important research area, (one that i've > been thinking about for a long time), but the work as i understand it (from > what i was told in private exchanges) is very rudimentary. Unlike the work > with cortex, there is no attempt to re-engineer how other parts of the > brain enact SMF. In fact, the approach was decidedly un-biological. > > > On 6/30/2015 11:01 AM, Dillon Bender wrote: > > Lol, okay... > > > > Have you watched this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFazR5yqesk > > > > Though, technically, they aren’t developing any structure per se, just the > algorithms. This talk is obviously about including the algorithms behind > sub-cortical structures. It’s the main focus right now. I’m not pretending > anything. > > > > Jeff also explains his goals for integrating sensorimotor feedback in this > Q&A session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRwf2uQTiWU > > > > - Dillon > > > > *From:* nupic [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Lohbihler > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 9:37 AM > > *To:* Dillon Bender > *Subject:* Re: Response to Jeff Hawkins interview. > > > > Actually, he doesn't. Jeff talks about cortex all the time. I have never > seen any talk of, research into, or plans to develop any other structure. > Don't get me wrong: cortex is a key thing. But let's not pretend that, > publicly anyway, anything else matters much to Numenta at the moment. > > On 6/30/2015 10:20 AM, Dillon Bender wrote: > > Right, Jeff talks about this all the time. An isolated cortex knows > virtually nothing and can cause nothing. It requires the sub-cortical > structures like the basal ganglia for learning sensorimotor perception and > control. That aspect will no doubt need to be included in HTM in some form. > But like he also says all the time, there’s no reason it has to resemble > natural, humanoid functions. All the cortical principles will be applied > generally to any sensory domain, limited by our imagination. No > circumvention of the biological algorithm is planned. > > > > - Dillon > > > > *From:* nupic [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Lohbihler > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 9:03 AM > *To:* Dillon Bender > *Subject:* Re: Response to Jeff Hawkins interview. > > > > I tend to agree with John. I suspect that intelligence developed upon a > neurological substrate without which that cortex can't function completely. > Maybe, maybe, MI can still be developed by circumventing the substrate, but > we'll learn so much more by developing it too. > > > On 6/30/2015 9:49 AM, Dillon Bender 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] > <[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]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > You're probably right :-) > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Lohbihler > > <[email protected]> <[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]> <[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]> <[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]> <[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]> <[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]> <[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]> <[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 > > > > > > > > > -- David Ragazzi Master in Sofware Engineering (University of Liverpool-UK) OS community commiter at Numenta.org -- Have you tried *NuPIC Studio*? Just check out https://github.com/nupic-community/nupic.studio and enjoy it! -- "I think James Connolly, the Irish revolutionary, is right when he says that the only prophets are those who make their future. So we're not anticipating , we're working for it."
