Re: [agi] Early Apps.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that my list is at http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/203-AI/Lecture/203-1126.htm. Happy New Year to everyone! Pei > - Original Message - > From: "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 6:26 PM > Subject: Re: [agi] Early Apps. > > > > As I posted to this mailing list a few months ago, I have a list (now > > including 10 projects) that: > > > > a.. Each of them has the plan to eventually grow into a "thinking > machine" > > or "artificial general intelligence" (so it is not merely about part of > AI); > > b.. Each of them has been carried out for more than 5 years (so it is > more > > than a PhD project); > > c.. Each of them has prototypes or early versions finished (so it is not > > merely a theory), and there are some publications explaining how it works > > (so it is not merely a claim). > > Ben has a similar list at http://www.agiri.org/agilinks.htm. > > > > If by "serious AI efforts" you don't restrict the field to AGI (or "strong > > AI", "real AI", and so on), then there are hundreds of projects with more > > that 5 man years worth of effort. > > > > Pei > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Damien Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:57 PM > > Subject: Re: [agi] Early Apps. > > > > > > > > Gary Miller wrote: > > > > > > > > That being said other than Cyc I am at a loss to name any serious AI > > > > > efforts which are over a few years in duration and have more that 5 > > man > > > > > years worth of effort (not counting promotional and fundraising). > > > > > > No offense, but I suspect you need to read more of the literature. I > > still am > > > rather clueless about the field, and I can name a few such projects. In > > > Hofstadter's lab both the Metacat and Letter Spirit projects are each > the > > > product of roughly a man-decade of effort, one man (or woman) at a time. > > The > > > Tabletop project might count as more effort in the same design, not to > > mention > > > Copycat's precursors. It's likely that someone will be working on > > extending > > > Metacat soon. > > > > > > Elsewhere, there's the ACT-R project at CMU, formerly ACT-*, about which > I > > > know very little, but it seems to have been around for a while. At > > Indiana > > > University David Leake's case-based reasoning project seems to have > > multiple > > > grad students, probably pushing it over 5 man years quickly, although if > > by > > > "serious AI" you meant "general AI now" it might not qualify. > > > > > > -xx- Damien X-) > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > > subscription, > > > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Early Apps.
As I posted to this mailing list a few months ago, I have a list (now including 10 projects) that: a.. Each of them has the plan to eventually grow into a "thinking machine" or "artificial general intelligence" (so it is not merely about part of AI); b.. Each of them has been carried out for more than 5 years (so it is more than a PhD project); c.. Each of them has prototypes or early versions finished (so it is not merely a theory), and there are some publications explaining how it works (so it is not merely a claim). Ben has a similar list at http://www.agiri.org/agilinks.htm. If by "serious AI efforts" you don't restrict the field to AGI (or "strong AI", "real AI", and so on), then there are hundreds of projects with more that 5 man years worth of effort. Pei - Original Message - From: "Damien Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Early Apps. > > Gary Miller wrote: > > > > That being said other than Cyc I am at a loss to name any serious AI > > > efforts which are over a few years in duration and have more that 5 man > > > years worth of effort (not counting promotional and fundraising). > > No offense, but I suspect you need to read more of the literature. I still am > rather clueless about the field, and I can name a few such projects. In > Hofstadter's lab both the Metacat and Letter Spirit projects are each the > product of roughly a man-decade of effort, one man (or woman) at a time. The > Tabletop project might count as more effort in the same design, not to mention > Copycat's precursors. It's likely that someone will be working on extending > Metacat soon. > > Elsewhere, there's the ACT-R project at CMU, formerly ACT-*, about which I > know very little, but it seems to have been around for a while. At Indiana > University David Leake's case-based reasoning project seems to have multiple > grad students, probably pushing it over 5 man years quickly, although if by > "serious AI" you meant "general AI now" it might not qualify. > > -xx- Damien X-) > > --- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Early Apps.
> Gary Miller wrote: > > That being said other than Cyc I am at a loss to name any serious AI > > efforts which are over a few years in duration and have more that 5 man > > years worth of effort (not counting promotional and fundraising). No offense, but I suspect you need to read more of the literature. I still am rather clueless about the field, and I can name a few such projects. In Hofstadter's lab both the Metacat and Letter Spirit projects are each the product of roughly a man-decade of effort, one man (or woman) at a time. The Tabletop project might count as more effort in the same design, not to mention Copycat's precursors. It's likely that someone will be working on extending Metacat soon. Elsewhere, there's the ACT-R project at CMU, formerly ACT-*, about which I know very little, but it seems to have been around for a while. At Indiana University David Leake's case-based reasoning project seems to have multiple grad students, probably pushing it over 5 man years quickly, although if by "serious AI" you meant "general AI now" it might not qualify. -xx- Damien X-) --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Linguistic DB
Well, animal languages are not languages in the same sense as human languages... We humans don't really know them very well, and it seems to me that they would be VERY hard for an AI to use effectively unless that AI were embodied in a close simulation of an appropriate animal body. Animal language has got to be heavily dependent on situatedness... About phoneme-based rather than text-based NLP, that is a better idea than using animal languages (in my view)... there could be something to it. Having thought about it a bit before, however, I do not see any really significant pragmatic advantages. If you could say in detail what you think the advantages would be, I'd be curious to find out... ben > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Simon McClenahan > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [agi] Linguistic DB > > > Would it be easier for a computer to learn a less complicated animal > language like dog, whale, dolphin, etc. If a database was created from > animal languages, maybe then we could also translate animal language to > human language and back again. Hmm. > > How did human language evolve anyway? Surely we just have a more > sophisticated set of phonemes we can utter along with the intelligence to > create a grammar after constant repetition as babies? This is why I am > thinking a phoneme-based NLP system would be more practical than a > text-based one. Add some visual feedback to learn body gestures along with > the sounds would probably help too. > > cheers, > Simon > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 3:01 PM > Subject: [agi] Linguistic DB > > > > I've always considered the whole world/universe as one big database. A > system > > that narrows its focus to a partial set of knowledge contained in say, a > > computer database, will be excellent when performing within the realm of > which > > that database was created. > > > > Everyone needs to start wearing microphones and ear-pieces for the > computer to > > communicate to you with. What's the longest time it could take > to develop > a > > human-computer communication protocol, 20 years? I need to attach one to > my 6 > > month old daughter now, before it's too late! > > > > Heard about this DB yet? > > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ap/xml/02/12/16/021216apfastalk.xml > > > > > > cheers, > > Simon > > > On the other hand, if a system learns something through > reading out of a > DB, it > > > doesn't > > > have this surround of related things to draw on, so it will > be far less > able to > > > adapt and build > > > on that thing it's learned... > > > > > > My view is that a linguistic DB is not necessarily the kiss > of death for > an AGI > > > system -- but I > > > don't think you can build an AGI system that has a DB as its *primary > source* of > > > linguistic > > > knowledge. If an AGI system uses a linguistic DB as one among many > sources of > > > linguistic > > > information -- and the others are mostly experience-based -- > then it may > still > > > work, and the > > > linguistic DB may potentially accelerate aspects of its learning.. > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > subscription, > > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate > your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Linguistic DB
Would it be easier for a computer to learn a less complicated animal language like dog, whale, dolphin, etc. If a database was created from animal languages, maybe then we could also translate animal language to human language and back again. Hmm. How did human language evolve anyway? Surely we just have a more sophisticated set of phonemes we can utter along with the intelligence to create a grammar after constant repetition as babies? This is why I am thinking a phoneme-based NLP system would be more practical than a text-based one. Add some visual feedback to learn body gestures along with the sounds would probably help too. cheers, Simon - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 3:01 PM Subject: [agi] Linguistic DB > I've always considered the whole world/universe as one big database. A system > that narrows its focus to a partial set of knowledge contained in say, a > computer database, will be excellent when performing within the realm of which > that database was created. > > Everyone needs to start wearing microphones and ear-pieces for the computer to > communicate to you with. What's the longest time it could take to develop a > human-computer communication protocol, 20 years? I need to attach one to my 6 > month old daughter now, before it's too late! > > Heard about this DB yet? > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ap/xml/02/12/16/021216apfastalk.xml > > > cheers, > Simon > > On the other hand, if a system learns something through reading out of a DB, it > > doesn't > > have this surround of related things to draw on, so it will be far less able to > > adapt and build > > on that thing it's learned... > > > > My view is that a linguistic DB is not necessarily the kiss of death for an AGI > > system -- but I > > don't think you can build an AGI system that has a DB as its *primary source* of > > linguistic > > knowledge. If an AGI system uses a linguistic DB as one among many sources of > > linguistic > > information -- and the others are mostly experience-based -- then it may still > > work, and the > > linguistic DB may potentially accelerate aspects of its learning.. > > --- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Thinking may be overrated.
Kevin Copple wrote: > I do not want to say that random trial and error is the ultimate form of > intelligent thought. Far from it. But given what nature and > humankind have > achieved with it to date, and that we may not even recognize the extent to > which it is involved in our own thought, it seems to be an intriguing > ingredient. Perhaps artificial trial and error systems can lead > us to "pure > intelligence." That is, if pure intelligence is not an illusion, > a mirage, > an unachievable holy grail. Well, I agree with you that "random trial and error" is an "intriguing ingredient" and an important ingredient of cognition. Evolutionary programming is a key aspect of Novamente's "procedure learning" module, which is one of Novamente's most important components. But regarding "artificial trial and error can lead us to pure intelligence" -- I think it can, but only after a long time. I don't think this is anywhere near the shortest path... I don't think a mind based primarily on "trial and error" could run on viable hardware. I think that a digital evolution process based on trial and error could lead to the evolution of a mind, but this would take a while !! -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Thinking may be overrated.
Hi Kevin, "Trial and error" describes an approach to learning, and I think the issue you are getting at is that thinking (i.e., reasoning and planning) must be grounded in learning, in the same way that symbols must be grounded in sensory experience. This can be understood in terms of the general steps of brain evolution: 1. sensors -> nerve cells -> actions 2. reinforcement learning of behaviors in response to sensory stimuli, including the beginnings of reinforcement values such as "eating is good" 3. simulation (i.e., brains processing experiences that are not actually occuring) in order to begin solving the temporal credit assignment problem (this is the problem of reinforcing behaviors when rewards occur significantly later than behaviors, and multiple behaviors occur before rewards) 4. increasingly sophisticated simulation (planning, simulating brains of other animals) and values (social values for teamwork) To see how planning fits into learning, consider that when humans confront novel situations they consciously plan their behaviors, based on simulated scenarios. As they repeat the situation and it is less novel, those planned behaviors become unconscious. Furthermore, those unconscious behaviors become part of the repitoire for future planning. This relation between planning and learning is illustrated by the development of a beginning chess player into a chess master. A beginner's plans may include as many alternatives as a master's, but the master's plans are in terms of a repitoire of behaviors learned through lots of previous plans and reinforcement. Note that this analysis is different from Skinner's behaviorism because it deals with the way an internal mental life (i.e., simulation) fits into the learning of behaviors. Cheers, Bill -- Bill Hibbard, SSEC, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI 53706 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 608-263-4427 fax: 608-263-6738 http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/vis.html On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Kevin Copple wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: > > Traditional logic-based AI has badly underemphasized the role of trial and > >error, but I'm afraid you're swinging to the opposite extreme !! > > It has been said that it is easier to bring a wild idea under control than > to give life into a lame idea, so considering an extreme position may not be > a bad tactic. > > In further defense of trial and error, I would point out that much or most > of our human knowledge and progress has been the result of countless random > trials and errors of others. If the pre-Columbian Native Americans had a > strong value for seeking advancement through trial and error, I imagine they > would have discovered much better archery techniques that would have > dramatically altered human history. Would those countless archers have met > the criteria for AGI? Surely they would have. But they apparently lacked > respect for random trial and error in the pursuit of progress. Clearly they > WANTED their arrows to have three times the range, speed and power. Seems > this is an obvious case of an AGI (minus the "artificial") that desperately > needed the random trial and error problem solving method. > > In my life, I have found that various forms of negative feedback often > taught me an effective lesson, even though I intellectually KNEW the lesson > beforehand. As in, "I knew that was a bad idea, tried it anyway, and will > never again." I have seen this behavior many times in others as well. This > is the type of observation that makes me wonder the extent to which emotion > is the real driver in our intelligent behavior. WANTING to succeed often > seems to be the real factor in success at solving problems. > > What is the pattern matching that occurs in our biological neural nets? Is > it not a simple "trial and error," with more dimensions? To me, seeing a > pattern in a series of words, images, or numbers in an IQ test is a type of > trial and error. I am getting beyond my ability to express myself, at > least without more energy and time than I have at the moment, but it occurs > to me that what we perceive as logic in our brains is actually massively > parallel trial and error processes with emotional reinforcement for success > or failure. > > I do not want to say that random trial and error is the ultimate form of > intelligent thought. Far from it. But given what nature and humankind have > achieved with it to date, and that we may not even recognize the extent to > which it is involved in our own thought, it seems to be an intriguing > ingredient. Perhaps artificial trial and error systems can lead us to "pure > intelligence." That is, if pure intelligence is not an illusion, a mirage, > an unachievable holy grail. > > Cheers, > > Kevin Copple > > --- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED
