RE: [agi] Pattern extrapolation as a method requiring limited intelligence
The environmental complexities are different. NYC has been there for hundreds of years. Human brain has been in nature for hundreds of thousands of years. A manmade environment for AGI is custom made in the beginning; we don't just throw it out on the street or into the jungle. It can start off in a featureless box, with an Ethernet cable going in that is. From: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John Rose: Which actual world, a natural or manmade? Both, at least up to the present day. In my opinion (though I know from your previous post that you don't agree), I don't see a huge difference in the environmental complexity of the land on which New York City sits now vs 1000 years ago. I did not grow up, nor do I live, in a mostly featureless box. I do agree with your more general point that SOME of the brain's functionality does not have to be duplicated in silicon to achieve AGI. Whether it is a significant fraction, and whether it would need to be replaced with some other functionality, seems like a hard question to me. --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pattern extrapolation as a method requiring limited intelligence
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John:The synchronous melodies of the crickets strumming their legs, changes harmony as the wind moves warmthness. The reeds vibrate; the birds, fearing the snake, break their rhythmic falsetto polyphonies and flutter away to new pastures. But with humans, pattern-breaking and the seeking of novelty are fundamental and deliberate, not, as per your examples, purely reactive - and what make a true AGI. Yes Mike pattern breaking and seeking of novelty in humans, where does that come from? Did it just magically appear? And true AGI may be something far less sophisticated than a human but far more flexible and scalable. John --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...]
Kaj Sotala wrote: Richard, again, I must sincerely apologize for responding to this so horrendously late. It's a dreadful bad habit of mine: I get an e-mail (or blog comment, or forum message, or whatever) that requires some thought before I respond, so I don't answer it right away... and then something related to my studies or hobbies shows up and doesn't leave me with enough energy to compose responses to anybody at all, after which enough time has passed that the message has vanished from my active memory, and when I remember it so much time has passed already that a day or two more before I answer won't make any difference... and then *so* much time has passed that replying to the message so late feels more embarassing than just quietly forgetting about it. I'll try to better my ways in the future. On the same token, I must say I can only admire your ability to compose long, well-written replies to messages in what seem to be blinks of an eye to me. :-) Hey, no problem . you'll notice that I am pretty late getting back this time :-) . got too many things to keep up with here. In the spirit of our attempt to create the longest-indented discussion in the universe, I have left all the original text in and inserted my responses appropriately... On 3/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kaj Sotala wrote: On 3/3/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kaj Sotala wrote: Alright. But previously, you said that Omohundro's paper, which to me seemed to be a general analysis of the behavior of *any* minds with (more or less) explict goals, looked like it was based on a 'goal-stack' motivation system. (I believe this has also been the basis of your critique for e.g. some SIAI articles about friendliness.) If built-in goals *can* be constructed into motivational system AGIs, then why do you seem to assume that AGIs with built-in goals are goal-stack ones? I seem to have caused lots of confusion earlier on in the discussion, so let me backtrack and try to summarize the structure of my argument. 1) Conventional AI does not have a concept of a Motivational-Emotional System (MES), the way that I use that term, so when I criticised Omuhundro's paper for referring only to a Goal Stack control system, I was really saying no more than that he was assuming that the AI was driven by the system that all conventional AIs are supposed to have. These two ways of controlling an AI are two radically different designs. [...] So now: does that clarify the specific question you asked above? Yes and no. :-) My main question is with part 1 of your argument - you are saying that Omohundro's paper assumed the AI to have a certain sort of control system. This is the part which confuses me, since I didn't see the paper to make *any* mentions of how the AI should be built. It only assumes that the AI has some sort of goals, and nothing more. [...] Drive 1: AIs will want to self-improve This one seems fairly straightforward: indeed, for humans self-improvement seems to be an essential part in achieving pretty much *any* goal you are not immeaditly capable of achieving. If you don't know how to do something needed to achieve your goal, you practice, and when you practice, you're improving yourself. Likewise, improving yourself will quickly become a subgoal for *any* major goals. But now I ask: what exactly does this mean? In the context of a Goal Stack system, this would be represented by a top level goal that was stated in the knowledge representation language of the AGI, so it would say Improve Thyself. [...] The reason that I say Omuhundro is assuming a Goal Stack system is that I believe he would argue that that is what he meant, and that he assumed that a GS architecture would allow the AI to exhibit behavior that corresponds to what we, as humans, recognize as wanting to self-improve. I think it is a hidden assumption in what he wrote. At least I didn't read the paper in such a way - after all, the abstract says that it's supposed to apply equally to all AGI systems, regardless of the exact design: We identify a number of drives that will appear in sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design. We call them drives because they are tendencies which will be present unless explicitly counteracted. (You could, of course, suppose that the author was assuming that an AGI could *only* be built around a Goal Stack system, and therefore any design would mean any GS design... but that seems a bit far-fetched.) Oh, I don't think that would be far-fetched, because most AI people have not even begun to think about how to control an AI/AGI system, so they always just go for the default. And the default is a goal-stack system. I have not yet published my work on MES systems, so Omuhundro would probably not know of that. I did notice his claim that his 'drives' are completely general, and I found that amusing, because it does not cover the cases that I
Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...]
he makes a direct reference to goal driven systems, but even more important he declares that these bad behaviors will *not* be the result of us programming the behaviors in at the start but in an MES system nothing at all will happen unless the designer makes an explicit decision to put some motivations into the system, so I can be pretty sure that he has not considered that type of motivational system when he makes these comments. Richard, I think that you are incorrect here. When Omohundro says that the bad behaviors will *not* be the result of us programming the behaviors in at the start, what he means is that the very fact of having goals or motivations and being self-improving will naturally lead (**regardless of architecture**) to certain (what I call generic) sub-goals (like the acquisition of power/money, self-preservation, etc.) and that the fulfillment of those subgoals, without other considerations (like ethics or common-sense), will result in what we would consider bad behavior. I believe that he is correct in that goals or motivations and self-improvement will lead to generic subgoals regardless of architecture. Do you believe that your MES will not derive generic subgoals under self-improvement? Omohundro's arguments aren't *meant* to apply to an MES system without motivations -- because such a system can't be considered to have goals. His arguments will start to apply as soon as the MES system does have motivations/goals. (Though, I hasten to add that I believe that his logical reasoning is flawed in that there are some drives that he missed that will prevent such bad behavior in any sufficiently advanced system). - Original Message - From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...] Kaj Sotala wrote: Richard, again, I must sincerely apologize for responding to this so horrendously late. It's a dreadful bad habit of mine: I get an e-mail (or blog comment, or forum message, or whatever) that requires some thought before I respond, so I don't answer it right away... and then something related to my studies or hobbies shows up and doesn't leave me with enough energy to compose responses to anybody at all, after which enough time has passed that the message has vanished from my active memory, and when I remember it so much time has passed already that a day or two more before I answer won't make any difference... and then *so* much time has passed that replying to the message so late feels more embarassing than just quietly forgetting about it. I'll try to better my ways in the future. On the same token, I must say I can only admire your ability to compose long, well-written replies to messages in what seem to be blinks of an eye to me. :-) Hey, no problem . you'll notice that I am pretty late getting back this time :-) . got too many things to keep up with here. In the spirit of our attempt to create the longest-indented discussion in the universe, I have left all the original text in and inserted my responses appropriately... On 3/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kaj Sotala wrote: On 3/3/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kaj Sotala wrote: Alright. But previously, you said that Omohundro's paper, which to me seemed to be a general analysis of the behavior of *any* minds with (more or less) explict goals, looked like it was based on a 'goal-stack' motivation system. (I believe this has also been the basis of your critique for e.g. some SIAI articles about friendliness.) If built-in goals *can* be constructed into motivational system AGIs, then why do you seem to assume that AGIs with built-in goals are goal-stack ones? I seem to have caused lots of confusion earlier on in the discussion, so let me backtrack and try to summarize the structure of my argument. 1) Conventional AI does not have a concept of a Motivational-Emotional System (MES), the way that I use that term, so when I criticised Omuhundro's paper for referring only to a Goal Stack control system, I was really saying no more than that he was assuming that the AI was driven by the system that all conventional AIs are supposed to have. These two ways of controlling an AI are two radically different designs. [...] So now: does that clarify the specific question you asked above? Yes and no. :-) My main question is with part 1 of your argument - you are saying that Omohundro's paper assumed the AI to have a certain sort of control system. This is the part which confuses me, since I didn't see the paper to make *any* mentions of how the AI should be built. It only assumes that the AI has some sort of goals, and nothing more. [...] Drive 1: AIs will want to self-improve This one seems fairly straightforward: indeed, for humans self-improvement seems to be an essential part in
[agi] Language Comprehension: Archival Memory or ...
Preparation for Situated Action http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Barsalou_DP_1999_situated_comprehension.pdf This is what Stephen and I were discussing a while back - but it neatly names the alternative approaches to language. Most AGI language comprehension treats it as if it's all about archival memory - and so has most cognitive linguistics until recently. Treat it aspreparation for situated action, which is what it has to be, first and foremost, and you start to realise that imaginative simulation of language is a necessity for understanding. When you treat language as if it's all archival: John kicked Jim. Big countries like kicking small countries you can get away v. temporarily with the delusion that comprehension need not involve simulation, since the detailed specifics of scenes and actions may not be important. You need only know v.generally that some such things can happen. When you treat language as for action - Go and kick John [in the next room] Fancy kicking the ball around? the delusion soon becomes apparent - along with the total impossibility of purely symbolic/verbal processing. You have to imaginatively simulate the action in a given environment to see if it is viable (although this may well, of course, all be unconscious). --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Language Comprehension: Archival Memory or ...
Several comments . . . . First, this work is hideously outdated. The author cites his own reading for some chapters he produced in 1992. His claim that the dominant paradigms for studying language comprehension imply that it is an archival process is *at best* hideously outdated -- if indeed it was *ever* true (arguably, it is not). Second, look at the names he quotes -- Glenberg and Robertson or Roth. Are these names that are currently recognized and touted in the field of language comprehension? Emphatically NOT! POINT ONE - Please get yourself current before you attempt to argue anything. You should also assume that anything that hasn't caught on in 15+ years probably has not caught on for a reason. Third - your personal insistence on a linkage between imaginative and images is not supported anywhere. We all agree that imaginative models/simulations are necessary. The vast majority of us disagree that the perceptions for those models are necessarily visual. POINT TWO - The fact that you can't recognize that this paper does NOT support your fanciful point indicates that you *really* do not have a handle on all this. Yours is simple unadulterated bigotry. You only see what you already believe to be true and cannot even recognize when what you're seeing/looking for is not there. Give me some current references that support your point -- someone like Bloom, Chomsky, Pinker, Tomasello, Goldberg, or Jackendoff (you *do* recognize those names, don't you). POINT THREE - Insisting IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO with obsolete resources (that you are misunderstanding anyways) is not going to convince anyone. PLEASE, stop being a bigoted troll. Read something from *this* century and try to find a clue. - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 4:58 PM Subject: [agi] Language Comprehension: Archival Memory or ... Preparation for Situated Action http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Barsalou_DP_1999_situated_comprehension.pdf This is what Stephen and I were discussing a while back - but it neatly names the alternative approaches to language. Most AGI language comprehension treats it as if it's all about archival memory - and so has most cognitive linguistics until recently. Treat it aspreparation for situated action, which is what it has to be, first and foremost, and you start to realise that imaginative simulation of language is a necessity for understanding. When you treat language as if it's all archival: John kicked Jim. Big countries like kicking small countries you can get away v. temporarily with the delusion that comprehension need not involve simulation, since the detailed specifics of scenes and actions may not be important. You need only know v.generally that some such things can happen. When you treat language as for action - Go and kick John [in the next room] Fancy kicking the ball around? the delusion soon becomes apparent - along with the total impossibility of purely symbolic/verbal processing. You have to imaginatively simulate the action in a given environment to see if it is viable (although this may well, of course, all be unconscious). --- 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 --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] More Info Please
... on this: http://www.adaptiveai.com/news/index.htm Towards Commercialization It's been a while. We've been busy. A good kind of busy. At the end of March we completed an important milestone: a demo system consolidating our prior 10 months' work. This was followed by my annual pilgrimage to our investors in Australia. The upshot of all this is that we now have some additional seed funding to launch our commercialization phase late this year. On the technical side we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us. Fortunately we have a very strong and highly motivated team, so that over the next 6 months we expect to make as much additional progress as we have over the past 12. Our next technical milestone is around early October by which time we'll want our 'proto AGI' to be pretty much ready to start earning a living. By the end of 2008 we should be ready to actively pursue commercialization in addition to our ongoing RD efforts. At that time we'll be looking for a high-powered CEO to head up our business division which we expect to grow to many hundreds of employees over a few years. Early in 2009 we plan to raise capital for this commercial venture, and if things go according to plan we'll have a team of around 50 by the middle of the year. Well, exciting future plans, but now back to work. Peter --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] More Info Please
Peter has some technical info on his overall (adaptive neural net) based approach to AI, on his company website, which is based on a paper he wrote in the AGI volume Cassio and I edited for Springer (written 2002, published 2006). However, he has kept his specific commercial product direction tightly under wraps. I believe Peter's ideas are interesting but I have my doubts that his approach is really AGI-capable. However, I don't feel comfortable going into great deal on my reasons, because Peter seems to value secrecy regarding his approach... I've had a mild amount of insider info regarding the approach (e.g. due to visiting his site a few years ago, etc.) and don't want to blab stuff on this list that he'd want me to keep secret... Ben On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... on this: http://www.adaptiveai.com/news/index.htm Towards Commercialization It's been a while. We've been busy. A good kind of busy. At the end of March we completed an important milestone: a demo system consolidating our prior 10 months' work. This was followed by my annual pilgrimage to our investors in Australia. The upshot of all this is that we now have some additional seed funding to launch our commercialization phase late this year. On the technical side we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us. Fortunately we have a very strong and highly motivated team, so that over the next 6 months we expect to make as much additional progress as we have over the past 12. Our next technical milestone is around early October by which time we'll want our 'proto AGI' to be pretty much ready to start earning a living. By the end of 2008 we should be ready to actively pursue commercialization in addition to our ongoing RD efforts. At that time we'll be looking for a high-powered CEO to head up our business division which we expect to grow to many hundreds of employees over a few years. Early in 2009 we plan to raise capital for this commercial venture, and if things go according to plan we'll have a team of around 50 by the middle of the year. Well, exciting future plans, but now back to work. Peter --- 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 -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] More Info Please
Thanks, Ben. The technical details of our design and business plan details are indeed confidential. All I can really say publicly is that we are confident that we have pretty direct path to high-level AGI from where we are, and that we have an extremely viable business plan to make this happen. Initial commercialization next year will utilize the current 'low-grade' version of our AGI engine that will be able to perform certain tasks that are quite dumb (in human terms) but still commercially valuable. Our AGI 'brain' can potentially be utilized in many different kinds of systems/ applications. More details will probably become available late this year. Peter PS. I also have *some* doubts about the ultimate capabilities of our AGI engine, but probably no greater than yours about NM :) -Original Message- From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:56 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] More Info Please Peter has some technical info on his overall (adaptive neural net) based approach to AI, on his company website, which is based on a paper he wrote in the AGI volume Cassio and I edited for Springer (written 2002, published 2006). However, he has kept his specific commercial product direction tightly under wraps. I believe Peter's ideas are interesting but I have my doubts that his approach is really AGI-capable. However, I don't feel comfortable going into great deal on my reasons, because Peter seems to value secrecy regarding his approach... I've had a mild amount of insider info regarding the approach (e.g. due to visiting his site a few years ago, etc.) and don't want to blab stuff on this list that he'd want me to keep secret... Ben On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... on this: http://www.adaptiveai.com/news/index.htm Towards Commercialization It's been a while. We've been busy. A good kind of busy. At the end of March we completed an important milestone: a demo system consolidating our prior 10 months' work. This was followed by my annual pilgrimage to our investors in Australia. The upshot of all this is that we now have some additional seed funding to launch our commercialization phase late this year. On the technical side we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us. Fortunately we have a very strong and highly motivated team, so that over the next 6 months we expect to make as much additional progress as we have over the past 12. Our next technical milestone is around early October by which time we'll want our 'proto AGI' to be pretty much ready to start earning a living. By the end of 2008 we should be ready to actively pursue commercialization in addition to our ongoing RD efforts. At that time we'll be looking for a high-powered CEO to head up our business division which we expect to grow to many hundreds of employees over a few years. Early in 2009 we plan to raise capital for this commercial venture, and if things go according to plan we'll have a team of around 50 by the middle of the year. Well, exciting future plans, but now back to work. Peter --- 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 -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- 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 --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes...]
Mark Waser wrote: he makes a direct reference to goal driven systems, but even more important he declares that these bad behaviors will *not* be the result of us programming the behaviors in at the start but in an MES system nothing at all will happen unless the designer makes an explicit decision to put some motivations into the system, so I can be pretty sure that he has not considered that type of motivational system when he makes these comments. Richard, I think that you are incorrect here. When Omohundro says that the bad behaviors will *not* be the result of us programming the behaviors in at the start, what he means is that the very fact of having goals or motivations and being self-improving will naturally lead (**regardless of architecture**) to certain (what I call generic) sub-goals (like the acquisition of power/money, self-preservation, etc.) and that the fulfillment of those subgoals, without other considerations (like ethics or common-sense), will result in what we would consider bad behavior. This I do not buy, for the following reason. What is this thing called being self improving? Complex concept, that. How are we going to get an AGI to do that? This is a motivation, pure and simple. So if Omuhundro's claim rests on that fact that being self improving is part of the AGI's makeup, and that this will cause the AGI to do certain things, develop certain subgoals etc. I say that he has quietly inserted a *motivation* (or rather assumed it: does he ever say how this is supposed to work?) into the system, and then imagined some consequences. Further, I do not buy the supposed consequences. Me, I have the self-improving motivation too. But it is pretty modest, and also it is just one among many, so it does not have the consequences that he attributes to the general existence of the self-improvement motivation. My point is that since he did not understand that he was making the assumption, and did not realize the role that it could play in a Motivational Emotional system (as opposed to a Goal Stack system), he made a complete dog's dinner of claiming how a future AGI would *necessarily* behave. Could an intelligent system be built without a rampaging desire for self-improvement (or, as Omuhundro would have it, rampaging power hunger)? Sure: a system could just modestly want to do interesting things and have new and pleasureful experiences. At the very least, I don't think that you could claim that such an unassuming, hedonistic and unambitious type of AGI is *obviously* impossible. I believe that he is correct in that goals or motivations and self-improvement will lead to generic subgoals regardless of architecture. Do you believe that your MES will not derive generic subgoals under self-improvement? See above: if self-improvement is just one motivation among many, then the answer depends on exactly how it is implemented. Only in a Goal Stack system is there a danger of a self-improvement supergoal going awol. Omohundro's arguments aren't *meant* to apply to an MES system without motivations -- because such a system can't be considered to have goals. His arguments will start to apply as soon as the MES system does have motivations/goals. (Though, I hasten to add that I believe that his logical reasoning is flawed in that there are some drives that he missed that will prevent such bad behavior in any sufficiently advanced system). As far as i can see, his arguments simply do not apply to MES systems: the arguments depend too heavily on the assumption that the architecture is a Goal Stack. It is simply that none of what he says *follows* if an MES is used. Just a lot of non-sequiteurs. When an MES system is set up with motivations (instead of being blank) what happens next depends on the mechanics of the system, and the particular motivations. Richard Loosemore --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] More Info Please
Peter Voss wrote: Thanks, Ben. The technical details of our design and business plan details are indeed confidential. All I can really say publicly is that we are confident that we have pretty direct path to high-level AGI from where we are, and that we have an extremely viable business plan to make this happen. Initial commercialization next year will utilize the current 'low-grade' version of our AGI engine that will be able to perform certain tasks that are quite dumb (in human terms) but still commercially valuable. Our AGI 'brain' can potentially be utilized in many different kinds of systems/ applications. More details will probably become available late this year. Peter PS. I also have *some* doubts about the ultimate capabilities of our AGI engine, but probably no greater than yours about NM :) Peter, Interesting: I wonder if these doubts are the same as the doubts that I have about both NM and your own engine? Doubts, of course, that I do not have about Safaire. Nevertheless, good luck with your work. Richard Loosemore --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
