Re: [agi] Defining "understanding" (was Re: Newcomb's Paradox)
--- Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Mahoney said, > "A formal explanation of a program P would be a equivalent program Q, > such > that P(x) = Q(x) for all x. Although it is not possible to prove > equivalence in general, it is sometimes possible to prove nonequivalence > by finding x such that P(x) != Q(x), i.e. Q fails to predict what P will > output given x." > > But I have a few problems with this although his one example was ok. > One, there are explanations of ideas that cannot be expressed using the > kind of formality he was talking about. Secondly, there are ideas that > are inadequate when expressed only using the methods of formality he > mentioned, Third, an explanation needs to be used relative to some > other purpose. For example, making a prediction of how long something > will fall to the ground is a start, but if a person understands Newton's > law of gravity, he will be able to utilize it in other gravities as > well. And he may be able to relate it to real world situations where > precise measurements are not available. And he might apply his > knowledge of Newton's laws to see the dimensional similarities (of > length, mass, force and so on) between different kinds of physical > formulas. Remember that the goal is to test for "understanding" in intelligent agents that are not necessarily human. What does it mean for a machine to understand something? What does it mean to understand a string of bits? I propose prediction as a general test of understanding. For example, do you understand the sequence 0101010101010101 ? If I asked you to predict the next bit and you did so correctly, then I would say you understand it. If I want to test your understanding of X, I can describe X, give you part of the description, and test if you can predict the rest. If I want to test if you understand a picture, I can cover part of it and ask you to predict what might be there. Understanding = compression. If you can take a string and find a shorter description (a program) that generates the string, then use that program to predict subsequent symbols correctly, then I would say you understand the string (or its origin). This is what Hutter's universal intelligent agent does. The significance of AIXI is not a solution to AI (AIXI is not computable), but that it defines a mathematical framework for intelligence. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Defining "understanding" (was Re: Newcomb's Paradox)
Matt Mahoney said, "Prediction can be used as a test of understanding lots of things. For example, if I wanted to test whether you understand Newton's law of gravity, I would ask you to predict how long it will take an object of a certain mass to fall from a certain height." That is ok, but you would need to show that the prediction was accomplished using Newton's law of gravity. This is what Matt was getting at when he said, "A formal explanation of a program P would be a equivalent program Q, such that P(x) = Q(x) for all x. Although it is not possible to prove equivalence in general, it is sometimes possible to prove nonequivalence by finding x such that P(x) != Q(x), i.e. Q fails to predict what P will output given x." But I have a few problems with this although his one example was ok. One, there are explanations of ideas that cannot be expressed using the kind of formality he was talking about. Secondly, there are ideas that are inadequate when expressed only using the methods of formality he mentioned, Third, an explanation needs to be used relative to some other purpose. For example, making a prediction of how long something will fall to the ground is a start, but if a person understands Newton's law of gravity, he will be able to utilize it in other gravities as well. And he may be able to relate it to real world situations where precise measurements are not available. And he might apply his knowledge of Newton's laws to see the dimensional similarities (of length, mass, force and so on) between different kinds of physical formulas. Jim Bromer - Original Message From: Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:25:51 PM Subject: [agi] Defining "understanding" (was Re: Newcomb's Paradox) --- Stan Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not understanding why an *explanation* would be ambiguous? If I > have a process / function that consistently transforms x into y, then > doesn't the process serve as a non-ambiguous explanation of how y came > into being? (presuming this is the thing to be explained.) A formal explanation of a program P would be a equivalent program Q, such that P(x) = Q(x) for all x. Although it is not possible to prove equivalence in general, it is sometimes possible to prove nonequivalence by finding x such that P(x) != Q(x), i.e. Q fails to predict what P will output given x. Prediction can be used as a test of understanding lots of things. For example, if I wanted to test whether you understand Newton's law of gravity, I would ask you to predict how long it will take an object of a certain mass to fall from a certain height. If I wanted to test whether you understand French, I could give you a few lines of text in French and ask you to predict what the next word will be. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Weak AGI / strong chatbot
This seems to be occupying a no mans land between your average chatbot and AGI proper, and I think its intended primarily for use in games. http://fora.tv/2008/02/13/SILVIA_Artificial_Intelligence_Platform There seems to be little or no learning going on here, although there does appear to be some kind of context detection/matching. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It will be a process inside a heavily modified QEmu VM. I'm taking > baby steps towards modding the Sparc architecture in QEmu as that has > the biggest open hardware following, and should be relatively clean > compared to the heavily crufty x86 arch. But time is lacking at the > moment to learn the arch properly. My low level coding skills could > use a brush up as well. Things I will change about the arch include, > BIOS stage, MMU and memory protection I'll also add domain and > capability creation/destruction instructions. > > I could possibly create my own arch a lot more quickly, but it would > be no where near as optimised or as cross platform. And I would have > to figure out about interfacing with displays and other IO more than I > have to do if I mod QEmu. Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I think you'd be better off creating your own and punting optimization to version 2.0, but if you've decided on this direction, I'll wish you the best of luck with it; and let us know if you get something up and running. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI
2008/5/12 Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So let us get back to the problem a new process is being trialled. > > Whichever process is creating the new process, will set it up with its > > own domain, a bank and put some credit in it. Then pay some credit to > > register it with a low priority scheduler. > > Right, that's cool. The aspects I'm curious about are still much lower > level - by "process", do you mean an operating system process, or are > you going to write a VM, or use an off the shelf one? It will be a process inside a heavily modified QEmu VM. I'm taking baby steps towards modding the Sparc architecture in QEmu as that has the biggest open hardware following, and should be relatively clean compared to the heavily crufty x86 arch. But time is lacking at the moment to learn the arch properly. My low level coding skills could use a brush up as well. Things I will change about the arch include, BIOS stage, MMU and memory protection I'll also add domain and capability creation/destruction instructions. I could possibly create my own arch a lot more quickly, but it would be no where near as optimised or as cross platform. And I would have to figure out about interfacing with displays and other IO more than I have to do if I mod QEmu. > What will the > programs consist of, machine code, byte code, Lisp S-expressions...? > Machine code initially. Although I plan to create a C compiler + extensions to run on the system and then further languages to be added as needed. Compilers and interpreters are likely to very credit rich systems, but they will have to be a lot smarter in how they use those credits, than they are at the moment. Lisp S-expressions hide too much of the underlying resources being used, although to be honest I don't know how the Lisp based machines work, a version of them may be possible. But I figure work with what the most people know at the moment. I would like to go to a more parallel computer system in the future with persistent memory. > (I'm of the opinion that systems of the type you propose are > potentially a good idea, but are likely to succeed or fail based on > the nitty-gritty engineering details.) > True, there are a number of issues. Things like loading programs from persitant to transient memory are problematic (having a single program responsible for booting the whole system is not advisable IMO). My rules of thumb are 1) Avoid giving one program the ability to muck up/take over all the other programs as much as possible 2) There are more ways that a program can do this, than you can initially think of, look harder. If I could find a sufficient group of people interested in this topic I would branch off a mailing list. Will Pearson --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] The Messy World [for Steve R]
Steve R, Reading the following in a psych. group, made me think of your diagnostic program - the real world is generally messy: The principle applies to all AGI programs. "there is of course an interesting phenomenon in medicine generally where theories of causality may swing with the development of new data - consider things like stomach ulcers, generally seen as a purely medical problem until theories of stress (and especially Brady's work) had us all believing this was the key. Then we had helicobacter come onto the scene, and everything became medical again - until we discovered that we still had to explain why many people had helicobacter but no sign of ulcers. Is often *far* from easy to identify causes or even to specify "one" cause." --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So let us get back to the problem a new process is being trialled. > Whichever process is creating the new process, will set it up with its > own domain, a bank and put some credit in it. Then pay some credit to > register it with a low priority scheduler. Right, that's cool. The aspects I'm curious about are still much lower level - by "process", do you mean an operating system process, or are you going to write a VM, or use an off the shelf one? What will the programs consist of, machine code, byte code, Lisp S-expressions...? (I'm of the opinion that systems of the type you propose are potentially a good idea, but are likely to succeed or fail based on the nitty-gritty engineering details.) --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI
2008/5/11 Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm starting to mod qemu (it is not a straightforward process) to add >> capabilities. > > So if I understand correctly, you're proposing to sandbox candidate > programs by running them in their own virtual PC, with their own > operating system instance? I assume this works recursively, so a > qemu-sandboxed program can itself run qemu? Not quite what I meant. All the AI programs will run in the architecture I create, the fact that I am emulating it on qemu just means I can hopefully easily go to silicon one day. The architecture I create will be set up so that it is as near as it can be close to impossible for an unproven program to disrupt a proven one. I'll try and give an example of how I envisage the system working. A few bits of terminology first. Domain - A region of memory in which normal memory access can take place, . New domains can be created if the region of memory doesn't have a domain in, using a system call. Bank - Domains specialised in the storing and transferring of credit. System calls are used to create and destroy them. Read and write capabilities are never created for them Credit - a money like quantity. It is conserved and handed out to programs dependent upon the current performance of the system. Capabilities - Inter domain pointers, can be used to access memory . They can only be created by code within a domain, for regions of memory within that domain. Bidding - Periodically credit is used bid for system capabilities (special domain capabilities that allow them to be destroyed). If no bids are input the current controller stays the same. Bidding is also likely to be used for heavily contested non-system capabilities, like being able to put a process on a high priority scheduler. So let us get back to the problem a new process is being trialled. Whichever process is creating the new process, will set it up with its own domain, a bank and put some credit in it. Then pay some credit to register it with a low priority scheduler. The process itself will then have to interact with the rest of the system to try and earn some credit to pay for the place on the scheduler and keep up the domain (some of these values might be 0 if the system is below capacity). The setting up process will likely insert some code to the system so that when it gets given credit a portion is funnelled back to itself, so it makes a credit profit on the trial of the new program. A program that consistently makes trials that negatively impacts on the system as a whole will slowly lose credit and be unable to make new trials. If the program is truly malicious or badly coded any negative affect on the system it has will be of limited time duration until it runs out of credit. Any errors it causes will be limited to itself (it can't corrupt others memory). There is no equivalent of root to try and get access to, all programs have to be part of the economy. Will Pearson --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
