A few weeks ago , I was trying to answer the Traditional AI \ ML vs Nupic question myself. While I dont a have complete answer yet. I can point to a resource I felt very useful in this regard. The following is a MIT Press book in preparation by Yoshua Bengio, Ian Goodfellow and Aaron Courville.
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~bengioy/dlbook/ The book has some very good topics on traditional AI Approaches up-to DeepLearning. and gives a good understanding of evolution of Traditional ML upto DeepLearning methods. [image: Inline image 1] 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]> <[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] >> <[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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Regards Chandan Maruthi
