Julian, this email I sent last week to the nupic-theory mailing list entails a lot of what you asked for: http://lists.numenta.org/pipermail/nupic-theory_lists.numenta.org/2015-June/002823.html
In summary: - we got hierarchy working with "zeta 1" years ago - we abandoned it to start over with one layer, truer to the biology - CLA white paper and NuPIC were created, but no hierarchy (to be added later) - current NuPIC has online learning and sequence memory - current research working on sensorimotor integration and laminar structure (layers 4 & 6) --------- Matt Taylor OS Community Flag-Bearer Numenta On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Julian Samaroo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
