Re: [agi] Re: AI isn't cheap
On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: --- On Mon, 9/8/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/7/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact is that thousands of very intelligent people have been trying to solve AI for the last 50 years, and most of them shared your optimism. Unfortunately, their positions as students and professors at various universities have forced almost all of them into politically correct paths, substantially all of which lead nowhere, for otherwise they would have succeeded long ago. The few mavericks who aren't stuck in a university (like those on this forum) all lack funding. Google is actively pursuing AI and has money to spend. If you have seen some of their talks, you know they are pursuing some basic and novel research. Google to the best of my knowledge is pursuing a some areas of narrow AI. I do not believe they are remotely after AGI. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to estimate the cost of automating the global economy. I explained my estimate of 10^25 bits of memory, 10^26 OPS, 10^17 bits of software and 10^15 dollars. You want to replicate the work currently done by 10^10 human brains. Hmm. Actually probably only some 10^6 of them at most are doing anything much worth replicating. :-) A brain has 10^15 synapses. A neuron axon has an information rate of 10 bits per second. As I said, you can argue about these numbers but it doesn't matter much. An order of magnitude error only changes the time to AGI by a few years at the current rate of Moore's Law. Software is not subject to Moore's Law so its cost will eventually dominate. So creating software creating software may be a high payoff subtask. A human brain has about 10^9 bits of knowledge, of which probably 10^7 to 10^8 bits are unique to each individual. How much of this uniqueness is little more than variations on a much smaller number of themes and/or irrelevant to the task? That makes 10^17 to 10^18 bits that have to be extracted from human brains and communicated to the AGI. What for? That seems like a very slow path that would pollute your AGI with countless errors and repetition. This could be done in code or formal language, although most of it will probably be done in natural language once this capability is developed. Natural languages are ridiculously slow and ambiguous. There is no way the 10^7 guesstimated unique bits per individual will ever get encoded in natural language anyway (or much of anything else other than its encoding in those brains). Since we don't know which parts of our knowledge is shared, the most practical approach is to dump all of it and let the AGI remove the redundancies. Actually, of the knowledge the AGI needs we have pretty good ideas of how much is shared. This will require a substantial fraction of each person's life time, so it has to be done in non obtrusive ways, such as recording all of your email and conversations (which, of course, all the major free services already do). What exactly is your goal? Are you attempting to simulate all of humankind? What for when the real thing is up and running?If you want uploads there are more direct possible paths after the AGI has perfected some crucial technologies. The cost estimate of $10^15 comes by estimating the world GDP ($66 trillion per year in 2006, increasing 5% annually) from now until we have the hardware to support AGI. We have the option to have AGI sooner by paying more. Simple economics suggests we will pay up to what it is worth. Why believe that the real productive intellectual output of the entire human world is anywhere close to or represented by the world GDP? It is not likely that we need to download the full contents of all human brains including the huge part that is mere variation on human primate programming to effectively meet and exceed this productive intellectual output. I find this method of estimating costs utterly unconvincing. - samantha --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke. False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? It depends on what is meant by, and the value of, understand 3D space. If the intelligence needs to navigate or work with 3D space or even understand intelligence whose very concepts are filled with 3D metaphors, then I would think yes, that intelligence is going to need at least simulated detailed experience of 3D space. - samantha --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
I think it's the surprize that makes you laugh actually, not physical pain in other people. I find myself laughing at my own mistakes often - not because they hurt (in fact if they did hurt they wouldn't be funny) but because I get surprized by them. Valentina On 9/10/08, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke. False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? BTW it's kind of sad that people find it funny when others get hurt. I wonder what are the mirror neurons doing at the time. Why so many kids like to watch the Tom Jerry-like crap? Jiri --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: AI isn't cheap
Samantha, This is a really great posting. Just one comment: On 9/11/08, Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: A human brain has about 10^9 bits of knowledge, of which probably 10^7 to 10^8 bits are unique to each individual. How much of this uniqueness is little more than variations on a much smaller number of themes and/or irrelevant to the task? WOW, my very favorite subject, since it so greatly overlaps with so many religions. My claim is that most people are NOT sufficiently unique to claim that they have any soul at all, so there is nothing for them to save, especially through prayer that probably works to further standardize their brains. Public education also works great for soul-elimination. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Samantha, Mike, Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? It depends on what is meant by, and the value of, understand 3D space. If the intelligence needs to navigate or work with 3D space or even understand intelligence whose very concepts are filled with 3D metaphors, then I would think yes, that intelligence is going to need at least simulated detailed experience of 3D space. If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). Jiri --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). Surely the DARPA autonomous vehicles driving themselves around the desert and in traffic show that computers can cope quite well with a 3D environment, including other objects moving around them as well? BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Artificial humor
From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious or one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me seriously That is why I segregated analogical humor seperately (from routine seriousness) in my 2nd US patent 7236963 www.emotionchip.net This specialized meta-order-type of disqualification is built directly into the AGI schematics ... I realize that proprietary patents have acquired a bad cachet, but should not necessarily be ignored Nice patent. I can just imagine the look on the patent clerk's face when that one came across the desk. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. What about the programs that control Stanley and the other DARPA Grand Challenge vehicles? - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: AI isn't cheap
I suppose in order to justify my cost estimate I need to define more precisely what I mean by AGI. I mean the cost of building an automated economy in which people don't have to work. This is not the same as automating what people currently do. Fifty years ago we might have imagined a future with robot gas station attendants and robot sales clerks. Nobody imagined self serve gas or shopping on the internet. But the exact form of the technology does not matter. People will invest money if there is an expected payoff higher than market driven interest rates. These numbers are known. AGI is worth $10^15 no matter how you build it. An alternative goal of AGI is uploading, which I believe will cost considerably less. How much would you pay to have a machine that duplicates your memories, goals, and behavior well enough to convince everyone else that it is you, and have that machine turned on after you die? Whether such a machine is you (does your consciousness transfer?) is an irrelevant philosophical issue. It is not important. What is important is the percentage of people who believe it is true and are therefore willing to pay to upload. However, once we develop the technology to scan brains and simulate them, there should be no need to develop custom software or training for each individual as there is for building an economy. The cost will be determined by Moore's Law. (This does not solve the economic issues. You still have to pay uploads to work, or to write the software to automate the economy). Software is not subject to Moore's Law so its cost will eventually dominate. So creating software creating software may be a high payoff subtask. If it is possible. However, there is currently no model for recursive self improvement. The major cost of write a program to solve X is the cost of describing X. When you give humans a programming task, they already know most of X without you specifying the details. To tell a machine, you either have to specify X in such detail that it is equivalent to writing the program, or you have to have a machine that knows everything that humans know, which is AGI. A human brain has about 10^9 bits of knowledge, of which probably 10^7 to 10^8 bits are unique to each individual. How much of this uniqueness is little more than variations on a much smaller number of themes and/or irrelevant to the task? Good question. Everything you have learned through language is already known to somebody else. However, the fact that you learned X from Y is known only to you and possibly Y. Some fraction of nonverbally acquired knowledge is unique to you also. What fraction is relevant? Perhaps very little if AGI means new ways of solving problems rather than duplicating the work we now do. For other tasks such as entertainment, advertising, or surveillance, everything you know is relevant. Google to the best of my knowledge is pursuing a some areas of narrow AI. I do not believe they are remotely after AGI. Google has only $10^11 to spend, not $10^15. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Re: AI isn't cheap To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 3:19 AM On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: --- On Mon, 9/8/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/7/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact is that thousands of very intelligent people have been trying to solve AI for the last 50 years, and most of them shared your optimism. Unfortunately, their positions as students and professors at various universities have forced almost all of them into politically correct paths, substantially all of which lead nowhere, for otherwise they would have succeeded long ago. The few mavericks who aren't stuck in a university (like those on this forum) all lack funding. Google is actively pursuing AI and has money to spend. If you have seen some of their talks, you know they are pursuing some basic and novel research. Google to the best of my knowledge is pursuing a some areas of narrow AI. I do not believe they are remotely after AGI. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to estimate the cost of automating the global economy. I explained my estimate of 10^25 bits of memory, 10^26 OPS, 10^17 bits of software and 10^15 dollars. You want to replicate the work currently done by 10^10 human brains. Hmm. Actually probably only some 10^6 of them at most are doing anything much worth replicating. :-) A brain has 10^15 synapses. A neuron axon has an information rate of 10 bits per second. As I said, you can argue about these numbers but it doesn't matter much. An order of magnitude error only changes the time to AGI by a few years at the current rate of Moore's Law.
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? They are allowed to work by GPS but there are parts of the course where they are required to work without it. Shouldn't you already have basic knowledge like this before proclaiming things like neither do any others when talking about being able to understand any *general* concepts of orientation - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike, your argument would be on firmer ground if you could distinguish between when a computer understands something and when it just reacts as if it understands. What is the test? Otherwise, you could always claim that a machine doesn't understand anything because only humans can do that. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 1:31 PM Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Matt, Jeez, massive question :). Let me 1st partly dodge it, by giving you an example of the difficulty of understanding, say, over, both in NLP terms and ultimately (because it will be the same more or less) in practical object recognition/movement terms - because I suspect none of you have done what I told you, (naughty) looked at Lakoff. You will note the very different physical movements or positionings involved in: The painting is over the mantle The plane flew over the hill Sam walked over the hill Sam lives over the hill The wall fell over Sam turned the page over She spread the cloth over the table. The guards stood all over th ehill Look over my page He went over the horizon The line stretches over the yard The board is over the hole [not to mention] The play is over There are over a hundred Do it over, but don't overdo it. there are many more. See Lakoff for schema illustrations. Nearly all involve very different trajectories, physical relationships. That is why I'm confident that no program can handle that, but yes, Mark, I was putting forward a new idea (certainly to me) in the orientation framework - and doing no more than presenting a reasoned, but pretty ill-informed hypothesis. (And that is what I think this forum is for. And I will be delighted if you, or anyone else, will correct my overgeneralisations and errors). Now a brief, rushed but, I suspect, massive, and new answer to your question - that I think, takes us, philosophically, way beyond the concept of grounding, which a lot of people are currently using for understanding. To understand is to REALISE what [on earth, or in the [real] world] is being talked about. It is, in principle, and often in practice, to be able to go into the real world and point to the real objects/actions being referred to, (or realise that they are unreal/fantastic). So in terms of understanding a statement containing how something is over something else, it is to be able to go and point to the relevant objects in a scene, or, if possible, to recreate the physical events or relationship.. I believe that is actually how we *do* understand, how the brain does work, how a GI *must* work - , if correct, it automatically moves us beyond virtual AGI. I shall hopefully return to this concept on further occasions - I believe it has enormous ramifications. There are many, many qualifications to be made, which I won't attempt now, nevertheless the basic principle holds - and will hold for the psychology of how humans understand or *don't* understand or get confused. IOW not only must an AGI or any GI be embodied it must also be directly indirectly embedded in the world. (Grounding is being currently interpreted in practice almost entirely from the embodied or agent's side - as referring to what goes on *inside* the agent's mind. Realisation involves complementarily defining intelligence from the out-side of its ability to deal with the environment/real world being-referred-to. BIG difference. Like between just using nature/heredity, OTOH, and, OTOH, also using nurture/environment to explain behaviour). I hope you realise what I've been saying :). Matt: Mike, your argument would be on firmer ground if you could distinguish between when a computer understands something and when it just reacts as if it understands. What is the test? Otherwise, you could always claim that a machine doesn't understand anything because only humans can do that. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 1:31 PM Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To understand is to REALISE what [on earth, or in the [real] world] is being talked about. Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes something and when it just reacts as if it realizes it? Yeah, I know. Turing dodged the question too. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To understand is to REALISE what [on earth, or in the [real] world] is being talked about. Matt: Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes something and when it just reacts as if it realizes it? Yeah, I know. Turing dodged the question too. Matt, I don't understand this objection - maybe I wasn't clear. I said to realise is to be able to go and point to the real objects/actions referred to, and to make the real actions happen. You understand what a key is if you can go and pick one up. You understand what picking up a key is, if you can do it. You understand what sex is, if you can point to it, or, better, do it, the scientific observers, or Turing testers, can observe it. As I said, there are many qualifications and complications - for example to understand what mind is, is also to be able to point to one in action, but it is a complex business on both sides [both mind and the pointing] - nevertheless if both fruitful scientific and philosophical discussion and discovery about the mind are to take place - that real engagement with real objects, is exactly what must happen there too. That is the basis of science (and technology). The only obvious places where understanding/ realisation, as defined here, *don't* happen - or *appear* not to happen - are - can you guess? - yes, logic and mathematics. And what are the subjects closest to the hearts of virtual AGI-ers? So you are generally intelligent if you can not just have a Turing test conversation with me about going and shopping in the supermarket, but actually go there and do it, per verbal instructions. Explain any dodge here. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
Matt, To understand/realise is to be distinguished from (I would argue) to comprehend statements. The one is to be able to point to the real objects referred to. The other is merely to be able to offer or find an alternative or dictionary definition of the statements. A translation. Like the Chinese room translator. Who is dealing in words, just words. Mere words. (I'm open to an alternative title for comprehend - if you find it in any way grates on you as a term, please say). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
- Original Message - From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:28 AM Subject: RE: [agi] Artificial humor From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious or one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me seriously That is why I segregated analogical humor seperately (from routine seriousness) in my 2nd US patent 7236963 www.emotionchip.net This specialized meta-order-type of disqualification is built directly into the AGI schematics ... I realize that proprietary patents have acquired a bad cachet, but should not necessarily be ignored Nice patent. I can just imagine the look on the patent clerk's face when that one came across the desk. John ## I can safely assume Joe Hirl was smiling about having his name forever attached to this PATENT FOR THE AGES ... (It did take over 3 months to pass) John L www.global-solutions.org --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike, The plane flew over the hill The play is over Using a formal language can help to avoid many of these issues. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. The communication module in my experimental AGI design includes several specialized editors, one of which is a Space Editor which allows to use simple objects in a small nD sample-space to define the meaning of terms like in, outside, above, under etc. The goal is to define the meaning as simply as possible and the knowledge can then be used in more complex scenes generated for problem solving purposes. Other editors: Script Editor - for writing stories the system learns from. Action Concept Editor - for learning about actions/verbs related roles/phases/changes. Category Editor - for general categorization/grouping concepts. Formula Editor - math stuff. Interface Mapper - for teaching how to use tools (e.g. external software) ... Some of those editors (probably including the Space Editor) will be available only to privileged users. It's all RBAC-based. Only lightweight 3D imagination - for performance reasons (our brains cheat too), and no embodiment.. BTW I still have a lot to code before making the system publicly accessible. To understand is .. in principle, ..to be able to go into the real world and point to the real objects/actions being referred to.. Not from my perspective. I believe that is actually how we *do* understand, how the brain does work, how a GI *must* work It's ok (and often a must) to use different solutions when developing for different platforms. Planes don't flap wings. You understand what a key is if you can go and pick one up Again, AGI can know very little about particular objects and it can be enough to successfully solve many problems demonstrate useful level of concept understanding. Let's say the AGI works as an online adviser. For many key-involving problems it's good enough to know that a particular key object can be used to unlock/open another particular objects + the location info + sometimes the key color or so, but for example the exact shape of the key or the exact moves for opening a particular lock using the key - that's something this online AGI can in most cases leave to the user. The AGI should be able to learn details but there are so many details in the real world that, for practical reasons, the AGI would just need to filter most of it out. AGI doesn't need to interact with the real world directly in order to learn enough to be a helpful problem solver. And as long as it does a good job as a problem solver, who cares about the understanding vs reacting as if it understands classification.. Regards, Jiri Jelinek --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
