[agi] Primates using tools.
This could perhaps be relevant to understanding human level intelligence. One interpretation here is that the brain of primates considers tools as part of their body, which makes them good at using them: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/128/2 This of course, still leaves the question of how a generally intelligent system uses its body in the first place, and what special hardware there is to deal with this problem. :-). Personally I believe that a general intelligence, such as the human mind, still have some specialized processors to deal with very common situations. Another thing that I guess could use some special hardware, is the ability to feel empathy and understand other human beings or animals. To understand other intelligent beings is so important for humans, yet if done in a general way it seems so incredibly expensive and difficult. Also, a human is in many ways very similar to the intelligent beings it tries to simulate, so it is my firm belief that a human uses parts of its own cognitive process to simulate other intelligent beings. I think that a social AGI system needs to be able to instantiate its own cognitive process in a kind of role-play. Assume that I know this, that I want this, and that I am in this kind of situation, what would I do. And then use this role playing to assess others actions. The fact that empathy seems to be more strongly connected to biological heritage, rather than by social influence could indicate that the ability to feel empathy needs special hardware in our brain. I think I heard of a study that showed a very strong correlation between the empathic ability of identical twins, which should indicate that their social upbringing has less influence on this particular ability. However, I don´t remember the source of that that information. /Robert Wensman - 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=91461624-5f7744
Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...]
On Jan 29, 2008 6:52 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, sorry to hit you with incomprehensible technical detail, but maybe there is a chance that my garbled version of the real picture will strike a chord. The message to take home from all of this is that: 1) There are *huge* differences between the way that a system would behave if it had a single GS, or even a group of conflicting GS modules (which is the way you interpreted my proposal, above) and the kind of MES system I just described: the difference would come from the type of influence exerted, because the vector field is operating on a completely different level than the symbl processing. 2) The effect of the MES is to bias the system, but this bias amounts to the following system imperative: [Make your goals consistent with this *massive* set of constraints] where the massive set of constraints is a set of ideas built up throughout the entire development of the system. Rephrasing that in terms of an example: if the system gets an idea that it should take a certain course of action because it seems to satisfy an immediate goal, the implications of that action will be quickly checked against a vast range o constraints, and if there is any hint of an inconsistency with teh value system, this will pull the thoughts of the AGI toward that issue, whereupon it will start to elaborate the issue in more detail and try to impose an even wider net of constraits, finally making a decision based on the broadest possible set of considerations. This takes care of all the dumb examples where people suggest that an AGI could start with the goal Increase global happiness and then finally decide that this would be accomplished by tiling the universe with smiley faces. Another way to say this: there is no such thing as a single utility function in this type of system, nor is there a small set of utility functions there is a massive-dimensional set of utility functions (as many as there are concepts or connections in the system), and this diffuse utility function is what gives the system its stability. I got the general gist of that, I think. You've previously expressed that you don't think a seriously unfriendly AGI will be likely, apparently because you assume the motivational-system AGI will be the kind that'll be constructed and not, for instance, a goal stack-driven one. Now, what makes you so certain that people will build a this kind of AGI? Even if we assume that this sort of architecture would be the most viable one, a lot seems to depend on how tight the constraints on its behavior are, and what kind they are - you say that they are a a set of ideas built up throughout the entire development of the system. The ethics and values of humans are the result of a long, long period of evolution, and our ethical system is pretty much of a mess. What makes it likely that it really will build up a set of ideas constraints that we humans would *want* it to build? Could it not just as well pick up ones that are seriously unfriendly, especially if its designers or the ones raising it are in the least bit careless? Even among humans, there exist radical philosophers whose ideas of a perfect society are repulsive to the vast majority of the populace, and a countless number of disagreements about ethics. If we humans have such disagreements - we who all share the same evolutionary origin biasing us to develop our moral systems in a certain direction - what makes it plausible to assume that the first AGIs put together (probably while our understanding of our own workings is still incomplete) will develop a morality we'll like? -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ - 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=91461196-a87c48
Re: [agi] Primates using tools.
On 30/01/2008, Robert Wensman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another thing that I guess could use some special hardware, is the ability to feel empathy and understand other human beings or animals. To understand other intelligent beings is so important for humans, yet if done in a general way it seems so incredibly expensive and difficult. Also, a human is in many ways very similar to the intelligent beings it tries to simulate, so it is my firm belief that a human uses parts of its own cognitive process to simulate other intelligent beings. I think that a social AGI system needs to be able to instantiate its own cognitive process in a kind of role-play. Assume that I know this, that I want this, and that I am in this kind of situation, what would I do. And then use this role playing to assess others actions. Yes. This is a kind of bootstrapping process. First you need to just play around and start learning about how your own system interacts with the environment to develop a primitive theory of self. Here system and system interactions could mean a physical body or they could also apply to a disembodied intelligence living within an abstract domain such as the internet. In robotics general tool use means picking up the tool (assuming you know what procedure is appropriate to grab it) then using cameras the robot can observe the end of the object as it waves it randomly around. Once the principal axis and length of the object has been determined it can then be integrated into the kinematic model for the arm as if the tool were part of the robot. In my opinion the development of a primitive theory of self, and here I'm not referring to more high level social constructs, is the starting point for many other abilities. If you can learn to model yourself then it's possible to do things such as identify and compensate for damage and to create multiple instances of your model which are then applied to other beings (the theory of mind). - 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=91470010-1d68df
Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...]
Kaj Sotala wrote: On Jan 29, 2008 6:52 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, sorry to hit you with incomprehensible technical detail, but maybe there is a chance that my garbled version of the real picture will strike a chord. The message to take home from all of this is that: 1) There are *huge* differences between the way that a system would behave if it had a single GS, or even a group of conflicting GS modules (which is the way you interpreted my proposal, above) and the kind of MES system I just described: the difference would come from the type of influence exerted, because the vector field is operating on a completely different level than the symbl processing. 2) The effect of the MES is to bias the system, but this bias amounts to the following system imperative: [Make your goals consistent with this *massive* set of constraints] where the massive set of constraints is a set of ideas built up throughout the entire development of the system. Rephrasing that in terms of an example: if the system gets an idea that it should take a certain course of action because it seems to satisfy an immediate goal, the implications of that action will be quickly checked against a vast range o constraints, and if there is any hint of an inconsistency with teh value system, this will pull the thoughts of the AGI toward that issue, whereupon it will start to elaborate the issue in more detail and try to impose an even wider net of constraits, finally making a decision based on the broadest possible set of considerations. This takes care of all the dumb examples where people suggest that an AGI could start with the goal Increase global happiness and then finally decide that this would be accomplished by tiling the universe with smiley faces. Another way to say this: there is no such thing as a single utility function in this type of system, nor is there a small set of utility functions there is a massive-dimensional set of utility functions (as many as there are concepts or connections in the system), and this diffuse utility function is what gives the system its stability. I got the general gist of that, I think. You've previously expressed that you don't think a seriously unfriendly AGI will be likely, apparently because you assume the motivational-system AGI will be the kind that'll be constructed and not, for instance, a goal stack-driven one. Now, what makes you so certain that people will build a this kind of AGI? Even if we assume that this sort of architecture would be the most viable one, a lot seems to depend on how tight the constraints on its behavior are, and what kind they are - you say that they are a a set of ideas built up throughout the entire development of the system. The ethics and values of humans are the result of a long, long period of evolution, and our ethical system is pretty much of a mess. What makes it likely that it really will build up a set of ideas constraints that we humans would *want* it to build? Could it not just as well pick up ones that are seriously unfriendly, especially if its designers or the ones raising it are in the least bit careless? Even among humans, there exist radical philosophers whose ideas of a perfect society are repulsive to the vast majority of the populace, and a countless number of disagreements about ethics. If we humans have such disagreements - we who all share the same evolutionary origin biasing us to develop our moral systems in a certain direction - what makes it plausible to assume that the first AGIs put together (probably while our understanding of our own workings is still incomplete) will develop a morality we'll like? Perhaps we make too much of the idea of moral and ethical. As noted, this leads to endless debate. The alternative is to use law even though it may be arbitrary and haphazard in formulation. The importance of law is that it establishes risk. As humans we understand risk. Will an AI understand risk? Or, should we rephrase this to read will there be a risk for an AI? examples of what an AI might risk... 1. banishment - not allowed to run. No loading into hardware 2. isolation - prevention of access to published material or experimentation 3. imprisonment - similar to isolation, with more access than isolation 4. close supervision - imposing control through close supervision, constant oversight, actions subject to approval... 5. economic sanction - not allowed to negotiate any deals or take control of resources. I expect Matt Mahoney to point out that resistance is futile, the AI's will outsmart us. Does that mean that criminals will ultimately be smarter than non-criminals? Maybe the AI's of the future will want an even playing field and be motivated to enforce laws. I see Richards design as easily being able to implement risk factors that could lead to intelligent and legal behavior. I'm impressed by the design. Thanks for the explanation. Stan Nilsen
[agi] Request for Help
Remember that mathematical test/ experiment you all hated - the one where you doodle on this site - http://www.imagination3.com and it records your actual stream of drawing in time as well as the finished product? Well, a reasonably eminent scientist liked it, and wants to set it up. But he's having problems contacting the site- they don't reply to emails there's no way of accessing the time and space coordinates of the drawings, unless there's a possibility to read them from the Flash animation. Can you suggest either a) a way round this or b) an alternative site/method to faithfully record the time and space coordinates of the drawings? Cheeky request perhaps, but I would be v. grateful for any help. - 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=91653494-03327a
Re: [agi] Request for Help
I know that you can do stuff like this with Microsoft's new SilverLight. For example, http://www.devx.com/dotnet/Article/36544 - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:44 PM Subject: [agi] Request for Help Remember that mathematical test/ experiment you all hated - the one where you doodle on this site - http://www.imagination3.com and it records your actual stream of drawing in time as well as the finished product? Well, a reasonably eminent scientist liked it, and wants to set it up. But he's having problems contacting the site- they don't reply to emails there's no way of accessing the time and space coordinates of the drawings, unless there's a possibility to read them from the Flash animation. Can you suggest either a) a way round this or b) an alternative site/method to faithfully record the time and space coordinates of the drawings? Cheeky request perhaps, but I would be v. grateful for any help. - 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=91667763-eb70c4
Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide
On Jan 29, 2008 10:28 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethics only becomes snarled when one is unwilling to decide/declare what the goal of life is. Extrapolated Volition comes down to a homunculus depending upon the definition of wiser or saner. Evolution has decided what the goal of life is . . . . but most are unwilling to accept it (in part because most do not see it as anything other than nature, red in tooth and claw). The goal in life is simply continuation and continuity. Evolution goes for continuation of species -- which has an immediate subgoal of continuation of individuals (and sex and protection of offspring). Continuation of individuals is best served by the construction of and continuation of society. If we're smart, we should decide that the goal of ethics is the continuation of society with an immediate subgoal of the will of individuals (for a large variety of reasons -- but the most obvious and easily justified is to prevent the defection of said individuals). If an AGI is considered a willed individual and a member of society and has the same ethics, life will be much easier and there will be a lot less chance of the Eliezer-scenario. There is no enslavement of Jupiter-brains and no elimination/suppression of lesser individuals in favor of greater individuals -- just a realization that society must promote individuals and individuals must promote society. Oh, and contrary to popular belief -- ethics has absolutely nothing to do with pleasure or pain and *any* ethics based on such are doomed to failure. Pleasure is evolution's reward to us when we do something that promotes evolution's goals. Pain is evolution's punishment when we do something (or have something done) that is contrary to survival, etc. And while both can be subverted so that they don't properly indicate guidance -- in reality, that is all that they are -- guideposts towards other goals. Pleasure is a BAD goal because it can interfere with other goals. Avoidance of pain (or infliction of pain) is only a good goal in that it furthers other goals. Mark, Nature doesn't even have survival as its 'goal', what matters is only survival in the past, not in the future, yet you start to describe strategies for future survival. Yes, survival in the future is one likely accidental property of structures that survived in the past, but so are other properties of specific living organisms. Nature is stupid, so design choices left to it are biased towards keeping much of the historical baggage and resorting to unsystematic hacks, and as a result its products are not simply optimal survivors. When we are talking about choice of conditions for humans to live in (rules of society, morality), we are trying to understand what *we* would like to choose. We are doing it for ourselves. Better understanding of *human* nature can help us to estimate how we will appreciate various conditions. And humans are very complicated things, with a large burden of reinforcers that push us in different directions based on idiosyncratic criteria. These reinforcers used to line up to support survival in the past, but so what? -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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=91706178-a90dcf
Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide
Nature doesn't even have survival as its 'goal', what matters is only survival in the past, not in the future, yet you start to describe strategies for future survival. Goal was in quotes for a reason. In the future, the same tautological forces will apply. Evolution will favor those things that are adapted to survive/thrive. Nature is stupid, so design choices left to it are biased towards keeping much of the historical baggage and resorting to unsystematic hacks, and as a result its products are not simply optimal survivors. Yes, everything is co-evolving fast enough that evolution is not fast enough to produce optimum solutions. But are you stupid enough to try to fight nature and the laws of probability and physics? We can improve on nature -- but you're never going to successfully go in a totally opposite direction. When we are talking about choice of conditions for humans to live in (rules of society, morality), we are trying to understand what *we* would like to choose. What we like (including what we like to choose) was formed by evolution. Some of what we like has been overtaken by events and is no longer pro-survival but *everything* that we like has served a pro-survival purpose in the past (survival meaning survival of offspring and the species -- so altruism *IS* an evolutionarily-created like as well). Better understanding of *human* nature can help us to estimate how we will appreciate various conditions. Not if we can program our own appreciations. And what do we want our AGI to appreciate? humans are very complicated things, with a large burden of reinforcers that push us in different directions based on idiosyncratic criteria. Very true. So don't you want a simpler, clearer, non-contradictory set of reinforcers for you AGI (that will lead to it and you both being happy). These reinforcers used to line up to support survival in the past, but so what? So . . . I'd like to create reinforcers to support my survival and freedom and that of the descendents of the human race. Don't you? - Original Message - From: Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide On Jan 29, 2008 10:28 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethics only becomes snarled when one is unwilling to decide/declare what the goal of life is. Extrapolated Volition comes down to a homunculus depending upon the definition of wiser or saner. Evolution has decided what the goal of life is . . . . but most are unwilling to accept it (in part because most do not see it as anything other than nature, red in tooth and claw). The goal in life is simply continuation and continuity. Evolution goes for continuation of species -- which has an immediate subgoal of continuation of individuals (and sex and protection of offspring). Continuation of individuals is best served by the construction of and continuation of society. If we're smart, we should decide that the goal of ethics is the continuation of society with an immediate subgoal of the will of individuals (for a large variety of reasons -- but the most obvious and easily justified is to prevent the defection of said individuals). If an AGI is considered a willed individual and a member of society and has the same ethics, life will be much easier and there will be a lot less chance of the Eliezer-scenario. There is no enslavement of Jupiter-brains and no elimination/suppression of lesser individuals in favor of greater individuals -- just a realization that society must promote individuals and individuals must promote society. Oh, and contrary to popular belief -- ethics has absolutely nothing to do with pleasure or pain and *any* ethics based on such are doomed to failure. Pleasure is evolution's reward to us when we do something that promotes evolution's goals. Pain is evolution's punishment when we do something (or have something done) that is contrary to survival, etc. And while both can be subverted so that they don't properly indicate guidance -- in reality, that is all that they are -- guideposts towards other goals. Pleasure is a BAD goal because it can interfere with other goals. Avoidance of pain (or infliction of pain) is only a good goal in that it furthers other goals. Mark, Nature doesn't even have survival as its 'goal', what matters is only survival in the past, not in the future, yet you start to describe strategies for future survival. Yes, survival in the future is one likely accidental property of structures that survived in the past, but so are other properties of specific living organisms. Nature is stupid, so design choices left to it are biased towards keeping much of the historical baggage and resorting to unsystematic hacks, and as a result its products are not simply optimal survivors. When we are talking about choice of conditions for
Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...]
Kaj Sotala wrote: On Jan 29, 2008 6:52 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, sorry to hit you with incomprehensible technical detail, but maybe there is a chance that my garbled version of the real picture will strike a chord. The message to take home from all of this is that: 1) There are *huge* differences between the way that a system would behave if it had a single GS, or even a group of conflicting GS modules (which is the way you interpreted my proposal, above) and the kind of MES system I just described: the difference would come from the type of influence exerted, because the vector field is operating on a completely different level than the symbl processing. 2) The effect of the MES is to bias the system, but this bias amounts to the following system imperative: [Make your goals consistent with this *massive* set of constraints] where the massive set of constraints is a set of ideas built up throughout the entire development of the system. Rephrasing that in terms of an example: if the system gets an idea that it should take a certain course of action because it seems to satisfy an immediate goal, the implications of that action will be quickly checked against a vast range o constraints, and if there is any hint of an inconsistency with teh value system, this will pull the thoughts of the AGI toward that issue, whereupon it will start to elaborate the issue in more detail and try to impose an even wider net of constraits, finally making a decision based on the broadest possible set of considerations. This takes care of all the dumb examples where people suggest that an AGI could start with the goal Increase global happiness and then finally decide that this would be accomplished by tiling the universe with smiley faces. Another way to say this: there is no such thing as a single utility function in this type of system, nor is there a small set of utility functions there is a massive-dimensional set of utility functions (as many as there are concepts or connections in the system), and this diffuse utility function is what gives the system its stability. I got the general gist of that, I think. You've previously expressed that you don't think a seriously unfriendly AGI will be likely, apparently because you assume the motivational-system AGI will be the kind that'll be constructed and not, for instance, a goal stack-driven one. Now, what makes you so certain that people will build a this kind of AGI? Kaj, [This is just a preliminary answer: I am composing a full essay now, which will appear in my blog. This is such a complex debate that it needs to be unpacked in a lot more detail than is possible here. Richard]. The answer is a mixture of factors. The most important reason that I think this type will win out over a goal-stack system is that I really think the latter cannot be made to work in a form that allows substantial learning. A goal-stack control system relies on a two-step process: build your stack using goals that are represented in some kind of propositonal form, and then (when you are ready to pursue a goal) *interpret* the meaning of the proposition on the top of the stack so you can start breaking it up into subgoals. The problem with this two-step process is that the interpretation of each goal is only easy when you are down at the lower levels of the stack - Pick up the red block is easy to interpret, but Make humans happy is a profoundly abstract statement that has a million different interpretations. This is one reason why nobody has build an AGI. To make a completely autonomous system that can do such things as learn by engaging in exploratory behavior, you have to be able insert goals like Do some playing, and there is no clear way to break that statement down into unambiguous subgoals. The result is that if you really did try to build an AGI with a goal like that, the actual behavior of the system would be wildly unpredictable, and probably not good for the system itself. Further: if the system is to acquire its own knowledge independently from a child-like state (something that, for separate reasons, I think is going to be another prerequisite for true AGI), then the child system cannot possibly have goals built into it that contain statements like Engage in an empathic relationship with your parents because it does not have the knowledge base built up yet, and cannot understand such a propositions! These technical reasons seem to imply that the first AGI that is successful will, in fact, have a motivational-emotional system. Anyone else trying to build a goal-stack system will simply never get there. But beyond this technical reason, I also believe that when people start to make a serious efort to build AGI systems - i.e. when it is talked about in government budget speeches across the world - there will be questions about safety, and the safety features of the two types of AGI will be examined. I believe that at
RE: [agi] Request for Help
Hi Mike, When the Flash code on your machine contacts the server, I assume it would use a fairly straightforward communications format (XML over HTTP maybe?). If you install a program to monitor the communications, you might be able to figure out how to get at the data without using Flash. There are plenty of options for such monitoring: do a web search for HTTP sniffer, HTTP protocol analyzer or HTTP spy or something along those lines. It installs on your own computer and tells you all the communications that the Flash applet is making with the server. I don't know about the legality of mining the underlying web services and data with your own client (rather than the supplied Flash applet). If you or your collaborator is currently based at a university, another possibility would be to recruit an undergraduate student to implement a similar Flash applet of your own. A simple drawing recorder without all the fancy extras and graphic design of the imagination3 site should actually be a fairly small project. You can probably find a student to create a similar web service for you in a few days for less than a couple hundred dollars. -Ben -Original Message- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2008 4:45 To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] Request for Help Remember that mathematical test/ experiment you all hated - the one where you doodle on this site - http://www.imagination3.com and it records your actual stream of drawing in time as well as the finished product? Well, a reasonably eminent scientist liked it, and wants to set it up. But he's having problems contacting the site- they don't reply to emails there's no way of accessing the time and space coordinates of the drawings, unless there's a possibility to read them from the Flash animation. Can you suggest either a) a way round this or b) an alternative site/method to faithfully record the time and space coordinates of the drawings? Cheeky request perhaps, but I would be v. grateful for any help. - 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=91906145-b2bea4
