Re: Re[6]: [agi] Funding AGI research
Linas: I find it telling that no one is saying I've got the code, I just need to scale it up 1000-fold to make it impressive ... Yes, that's an accurate comment. Novamente will hopefully reach that point in a few years. For now, we will need (and use) a lotta machines for commercial product deployment purposes. But for RD purposes, it's all about solving a large number of moderate-sized computer science and AI research problems, that are connected together via the overall NM AGI design. Once these problems are all worked through and we have a completed Novamente codebase then we will be far better able to evaluate what our hardware requirements actually are. I am pretty sure they will be large. But right now, having masses of hardware wouldn't accelerate our progress all that much. What is useful to us is money to pay the right brains to solve the long list of apparently-not-that-huge technical problems between here and a completed Novamente system. And of course there is always a nonzero risk that one of these apparently-not-that-huge technical problems will turn out to be huge; but, a lot of thinking has gone on over a number of years in a serious attempt to avoid this... -- Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=68394009-e1d34e
RE: Re[6]: [agi] Funding AGI research
A few days ago there was some discussion on this list about the potential usefulness of narrow AI to AGI. Nick Cassimatis, who is speaking at AGI 2008, has something he calls Polyscheme which is described partially at the following AGIRI link: http://www.agiri.org/workshop/Cassimatis.ppt It appears to use what are arguably narrow AI modules in a coordinated manner to achieve AGI. Is this a correct interpretation? Does it work? And, if so, how? I can imagine how multiple narrow AI’s could be used to create a more general AGI if there were some AGI glue to represent and learn the relationships between the different AGI modalities. Cassimatis mentions tying these different modalities together using relations involving “times, space, events, identity, causality and belief.” (But I don’t remember much description of how it does it.) Arguably these are enough dimensions to create generalized representations, provided there is some generalized means for representing all the important states and representations in each of the Narrow AI modalities and the relationships between them in each of these dimensions and compositions and generalizations formed from such relationships. Is that what Cassimatis is talking about? Ed Porter - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=68480216-19f95d
Re: Re[6]: [agi] Funding AGI research
Cassimatis's system is an interesting research system ... it doesn't yet have lotsa demonstrated practical functionality, if that's what you mean by work... He wants to take a bunch of disparately-functioning agents, and hook them together into a common framework using a common logical interlingua I think this approach is unlikely to lead to the various agents involved quelling, rather than exacerbating, each others' intrinsic combinatorial explosions... I think it is unlikely to lead to sufficiently coherent system-wide emergent dynamics to give rise to an effective phenomenal self ... But given the primitive state of AGI theory at the moment, I can't *prove* that these complaints are correct, of course... -- Ben G On Nov 25, 2007 7:22 PM, Edward Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few days ago there was some discussion on this list about the potential usefulness of narrow AI to AGI. Nick Cassimatis, who is speaking at AGI 2008, has something he calls Polyscheme which is described partially at the following AGIRI link: http://www.agiri.org/workshop/Cassimatis.ppt It appears to use what are arguably narrow AI modules in a coordinated manner to achieve AGI. Is this a correct interpretation? Does it work? And, if so, how? I can imagine how multiple narrow AI's could be used to create a more general AGI if there were some AGI glue to represent and learn the relationships between the different AGI modalities. Cassimatis mentions tying these different modalities together using relations involving times, space, events, identity, causality and belief. (But I don't remember much description of how it does it.) Arguably these are enough dimensions to create generalized representations, provided there is some generalized means for representing all the important states and representations in each of the Narrow AI modalities and the relationships between them in each of these dimensions and compositions and generalizations formed from such relationships. Is that what Cassimatis is talking about? Ed Porter This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=68488723-9c2917
RE: Re[4]: [agi] Funding AGI research
Yeah - because weak AI is so simple. Why not just make some run-of-the-mill narrow AI with a single goal of Build AGI? You can just relax while it does all the work. I kind of like the idea of building software that then builds AGI. But you could say that that software is part of the AGI itself especially in an intelligence emergence generator type AGI. It depends on what code language the AGI is running in. C++ could host another language that is hosting the emerged AGI. The original c++ code could be written by some other c++ application instead of human coders. Another way is to read data from the real world and have that generate code. Stuff comes in and that is turned into c++ code based on its properties, behaviors, etc.. and that stuff is then integrated into the main engine. The main engine is just a very abstract system that aggregates, systematizes and housekeeps the real world's c++ systems. So they come in as OOP mini applications and these are analyzed and categorized at the c++ semtactic level and then assimilated/integrated into the system's catagorizational internal framework/network. It's basically a form of continuous compilation AGI, you'd have processes and servers just compiling continuously while the thing is ripping apart, modifying, generating and compiling code. But yeah the trick is how well it modifies itself, the idea being it starts off simple thus maximizing the developer's relaxation time :) It can be evolutionary or it could follow other intelligent automata type pattern generative operative source-code expression and interaction. John - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=68498882-d93fe1
