When I first "found" this I tried to communicate with one of the Hackathon programmers that did this hack and have not received an email response. This code for this hack was lost, and so I don't know how they structured the HTM interaction. Perhaps one of the other Numenta engineers has a clue? I don't?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:32 AM, John Blackburn <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 > > -- *With kind regards,* David Ray Java Solutions Architect *Cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>* Sponsor of: HTM.java <https://github.com/numenta/htm.java> [email protected] http://cortical.io
