Really nice, Julian! This is a noble attitude! On 30 June 2015 at 14:59, Matthew Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow, this is great guys. It just goes to show that we are all in this > game for the same payoff, and working together will get us further > along than throwing spears. Thanks for this. > > --------- > Matt Taylor > OS Community Flag-Bearer > Numenta > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Julian Samaroo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I apologize for being so hostile. As David and Matthew stated, yes, I do > get > > rather defensive when others assault the hard work that has been done > > throughout the years in the Machine Learning field, as I personally look > up > > to those researchers. I also should say that HTM is what really got me > > interested in ML starting off, so I have no hatred towards it. While I > don't > > like many of the biases exhibited here and on the public Gitter chat > room, I > > do realize that I am a part of it. Thus, moving forwards I think it would > > help for all of us to shed these biases, and approach the pursuit of AI > from > > a more laid-back perspective, considering all approaches equally. > > > > Therefore, as Matthew suggested, I think it would be in all of our best > > interests if we might each attempt to add pieces to the puzzle, so to > speak. > > I clearly have more experience with other ML techniques distinct from HTM > > and those residing in NuPIC, and I am indeed currently putting together a > > project to showcase a combination of these algorithms, which is the > approach > > that I believe to be most likely to produce the AGI that we seek. And of > > course, Numenta and friends have more experience on the HTM and > neocortical > > aspects of cognition to press forwards and develop THE cortical > algorithm on > > which our cortices operate. I think it might be good then for each of us > to > > work on our respective pieces more-or-less separately, and divide up the > > work that will go into creating AI. > > > > Let me then layout the work that I have cutout for myself: > > > > Reinforcement learning, specifically using a singular reward/punishment > > signal to produce internal and external actions > > Error-driven learning (such as found in the cerebellum), to allow an AI > to > > model it's environment in a way which merges sensory and motor systems > on a > > fast timescale > > Episodic-like memory formation, such as found in the hippocampus, for the > > storage and retrieval of "memories" of past or current events > > Working memory, as found in the PFC, for temporary storage and retrieval > of > > relevant information required at some later point (useful for matching > > tasks) > > > > Following from that, it seems that Numenta is already in it's preferred > > spot: > > > > Feature learning and encoding of diverse stimuli > > Pooling throughout a hierarchy, spatially and temporally > > Anomaly detection and prediction of future events or external states > > Sensorimotor prediction, utilizing motor feedback signals for tracking > the > > state of the AI > > Invariance and generalization to similar stimuli, while retaining the > > ability to differentiate distinct stimuli > > > > I'm sure I missed a few things on Numenta's side, but to me this seems > like > > a good division of labor, especially given that my work is heavily based > off > > the work of previous (and current) ML research, and should therefore move > > along a bit quicker. Hopefully within the next few years both platforms > will > > be developed enough that they can be easily combined and still function > > effectively. However, given that HTM has had some issues with certain > > cortical-based problems, such as visual recognition, I'd like to suggest > > some well-designed algorithms to look at for ideas for future additions > or > > modifications. Many of them are also based on the cortex, so it should be > > easy to understand the connections to HTM: > > > > Convolutional Neural Networks, for rapidly learning generic "filters" > (such > > as in the visual and auditory cortices) > > Echo-State Networks, also used in auditory areas for storage and recall > of > > short or long sequences of auditory representations > > Recurrent Sparse Autoencoders, for reproducing the input provided and > > extracting higher-level, more abstract features (can also be made > > temporally-aware quite easily) > > > > These are just a few examples, and I'm happy to give more as needed. I > hope > > that one day our algorithms can be combined to make something that we can > > possibly call "Human", and thus enter the era of Artificial Intelligence. > > > > Julian Samaroo > > Manager of Information Technology > > BluePrint Pathways, LLC > > (516) 993-1150 > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Lohbihler > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> A fair summary. Thanks Matt. > >> > >> > >> On 6/30/2015 12:06 PM, Matthew Taylor 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- 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."
