That is interesting and it seems the CLA had to remember the entire sequence right? Ie it was not given a note and told to produce the next note or the +5 note, it had to repeat the entire sequence without any input? (or just given the first note) I've never seen Nupic do this and would not know how to do it? I think it needs some sort of feedback loop for this?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:26 PM, cogmission (David Ray) <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Here's something to get excited about. This is one of the most inspiring > examples of NuPIC's abilities for me personally... Just watch the part about > the learning of the song... This link is already queued up... > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1vZ1ymrQE&feature=youtu.be&t=8m16s > > Enjoy, > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Matthew Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Encoders matter to Numenta, and those are extra-cortical structures. >> And you can't do sensorimotor work without extra-cortical structures >> either, so I would not say that they don't matter to us. >> >> I would say that we do not care so much about creating biologically >> accurate versions of extra-cortical structures. >> --------- >> Matt Taylor >> OS Community Flag-Bearer >> Numenta >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Matthew Lohbihler >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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]] 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]] 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > With kind regards, > > David Ray > Java Solutions Architect > > Cortical.io > Sponsor of: HTM.java > > [email protected] > http://cortical.io
