Re: [agi] AGI Alife
On 27 July 2010 21:06, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: Second observation about societal punishment eliminating free loaders. The fact of the matter is that *freeloading* is less of a problem in advanced societies than misplaced unselfishness. Fact of the matter, hm? Freeloading is an inherent problem in many social configurations. 9/11 brought down two towers, freeloading can bring down an entire country. There are very considerable knock on costs. There is the mushrooming cost of security This manifests itself in many ways. There is the cost of disruption to air travel. If someone rides on a plane without a ticket no one's life is put at risk. There are the military costs, it costs $1m per year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't know how much a Taliban fighter costs, but it must be a lot less. Clearly any reduction in these costs would be welcomed. If someone were to come along in the guise of social simulation and offer a reduction in these costs the research would pay for itself many times over. What *you* are interested in. This may be a somewhat unpopular thing to say, but money *is* important. Matt Mahoney has costed his view of AGI. I say that costs must be recoverable as we go along. Matt, don't frighten people with a high estimate of cost. Frighten people instead with the bill they are paying now for dumb systems. simulations seem :- 1) To be better done by Calculus. You usually use both, equations and heuristics. It depends on the problem, your resources, your questions, the people working with it a.s.o. That is the way things should be done. I agree absolutely. We could in fact take steepest descent (Calculus) and GAs and combine them together in a single composite program. This would in fact be quite a useful exercise. We would also eliminate genes that simply dealt with Calculus and steepest descent. I don't know whether it is useful to think in topological terms. - Ian Parker --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
One last point. You say freeloading can cause o society to disintegrate. One society that has come pretty damn close to disintegration is Iraq. The deaths in Iraq were very much due to sectarian blood letting. Unselfishness if you like. Would that the Iraqis (and Afghans) were more selfish. - Ian Parker --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Clues to the Mind: Learning Ability
:) Intelligence isn't limited to higher cognitive functions. One could say a virus is intelligent or alive because it can replicate itself. Intelligence is not just one function or ability, it can be many different things. But mostly, for us, it comes down to what the system can accomplish for us. As for the turing test, it is basically worthless in my opinion. PS: you probably should post these video posts to a single thread... Dave On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:39 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=287151911466 See how the parrot can learn so much! Does that mean that the parrot does intelligence. Will this parrot pass the turing test? There must be a learning center in the brain which is much lower than the higher cognitive fucntions like imagination and thoughts. cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote: Matt Mahoney has costed his view of AGI. I say that costs must be recoverable as we go along. Matt, don't frighten people with a high estimate of cost. Frighten people instead with the bill they are paying now for dumb systems. It is not my intent to scare people out of building AGI, but rather to be realistic about its costs. Building machines that do what we want is a much harder problem than building intelligent machines. Machines surpassed human intelligence 50 years ago. But getting them to do useful work is still a $60 trillion per year problem. It's going to happen, but not as quickly as one might hope. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 6:54:05 AM Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Alife On 27 July 2010 21:06, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: Second observation about societal punishment eliminating free loaders. The fact of the matter is that *freeloading* is less of a problem in advanced societies than misplaced unselfishness. Fact of the matter, hm? Freeloading is an inherent problem in many social configurations. 9/11 brought down two towers, freeloading can bring down an entire country. There are very considerable knock on costs. There is the mushrooming cost of security This manifests itself in many ways. There is the cost of disruption to air travel. If someone rides on a plane without a ticket no one's life is put at risk. There are the military costs, it costs $1m per year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't know how much a Taliban fighter costs, but it must be a lot less. Clearly any reduction in these costs would be welcomed. If someone were to come along in the guise of social simulation and offer a reduction in these costs the research would pay for itself many times over. What you are interested in. This may be a somewhat unpopular thing to say, but money is important. Matt Mahoney has costed his view of AGI. I say that costs must be recoverable as we go along. Matt, don't frighten people with a high estimate of cost. Frighten people instead with the bill they are paying now for dumb systems. simulations seem :- 1) To be better done by Calculus. You usually use both, equations and heuristics. It depends on the problem, your resources, your questions, the people working with it a.s.o. That is the way things should be done. I agree absolutely. We could in fact take steepest descent (Calculus) and GAs and combine them together in a single composite program. This would in fact be quite a useful exercise. We would also eliminate genes that simply dealt with Calculus and steepest descent. I don't know whether it is useful to think in topological terms. - Ian Parker --- 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 | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote There are the military costs, Do you realize that you often narrow a discussion down to military issues of the Iraq/Afghanistan theater? Freeloading in social simulation isn't about guys using a plane for free. When you analyse or design a system you look for holes in the system that allow people to exploit it. In complex systems that happens often. Most freeloading isn't much of a problem, just friction, but some have the power to damage the system too much. You have that in the health system, social welfare, subsidies and funding, the usual moral hazard issues in administration, services a.s.o. To come back to AGI: when you hope to design, say, a network of heterogenous neurons (taking Linas' example) you should be interested in excluding mechanisms that allow certain neurons to consume resources without delivering something in return because of the way resource allocation is organized. These freeloading neurons could go undetected for a while but when you scale the network up or confront it with novel inputs they could make it run slow or even break it. If someone were to come along in the guise of social simulation and offer a reduction in these costs the research would pay for itself many times over. SocSim research into peace and conflict studies isn't new. And some people in the community work on the Iraq/Afghanistan issue (for the US). That is the way things should be done. I agree absolutely. We could in fact take steepest descent (Calculus) and GAs and combine them together in a single composite program. This would in fact be quite a useful exercise. Just a note: Social simulation is not so much about GAs. You use agent systems and equation systems. Often you mix both in that you define the agent's behavior and the environment via equations, let the sim run and then describe the results in statistical terms or with curve fitting in equations again. One last point. You say freeloading can cause o society to disintegrate. One society that has come pretty damn close to disintegration is Iraq. The deaths in Iraq were very much due to sectarian blood letting. Unselfishness if you like. Unselfishness gone wrong is a symptom, not a cause. The causes for failed states are different. --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Tweaking a few parameters
A. T. Murray wrote Robot: I AM ANDRU Robot: I AM ANDRU Robot: ANDRU HELPS KIDS Robot: KIDS MAKE ROBOTS Robot: ROBOTS NEED ME Robot: I IS I Robot: I AM ANDRU Robot: ANDRU HELPS KIDS Robot: KIDS MAKE ROBOTS For the first time in our dozen-plus years of developing MindForth, the AI acts like an intelligence struggling to express itself, An artificial retard? We seem to be dealing with a true artificial intelligence here. Definitely. Now we upload the AI Mind to the World Wide Awakening Web. Next stop Singularity Station. :) --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
Unselfishness gone wrong is a symptom. I think that this and all the other examples should be cautionary for anyone who follows the biological model. Do we want a system that thinks the way we do. Hell no! What we would want in a *friendly* system would be a set of utilitarian axioms. That would immediately make it think differently from us. We certainly would not want a system which would arrest men kissing on a park bench. In other words we would not want a system which was axiomatically righteous. It is also important that AGI is fully axiomatic and proves that 1+1=2 by set theory, as Russell did. This immediately takes it out of the biological sphere. We will need morality to be axiomatically defined. Unselfishness going wrong is in fact a frightening thought. It would in AGI be a symptom of incompatible axioms. In humans it is a real problem and it should tell us that AGI cannot and should not be biologically based. On 28 July 2010 15:59, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: Ian Parker wrote There are the military costs, Do you realize that you often narrow a discussion down to military issues of the Iraq/Afghanistan theater? Freeloading in social simulation isn't about guys using a plane for free. When you analyse or design a system you look for holes in the system that allow people to exploit it. In complex systems that happens often. Most freeloading isn't much of a problem, just friction, but some have the power to damage the system too much. You have that in the health system, social welfare, subsidies and funding, the usual moral hazard issues in administration, services a.s.o. To come back to AGI: when you hope to design, say, a network of heterogenous neurons (taking Linas' example) you should be interested in excluding mechanisms that allow certain neurons to consume resources without delivering something in return because of the way resource allocation is organized. These freeloading neurons could go undetected for a while but when you scale the network up or confront it with novel inputs they could make it run slow or even break it. In point of fact we can look at this another way. Lets dig a little bit deeperhttp://sites.google.com/site/aitranslationproject/computergobbledegook. If we have one AGI system we can have 2 (or 3 even, automatic landing in fog is a triplex system). Suppose system A is monitoring system B. If system Bs resources are being used up A can shut down processes in A. I talked about computer gobledegook. I also have the feeling that with AGI we should be able to get intelligible advice (in NL) about what was going wrong. For this reason it would not be possible to overload AGI. I have the feeling that perhaps one aim in AGI should be user friendly systems. One product is in fact a form filler. As far as society i concerned I think this all depends on how resource limited we are. In a resource limited society freeloading is the biggest issue. In our society violence in all its forms is the big issue. One need not go to Iraq or Afghanistan for examples. There are plenty in ordinary crime. Happy slapping, domestic violence, violence against children. If the people who wrote computer viruses stole a large sum of money, what they did would, to me at any rate, be more forgiveable. People take a delight in wrecking things for other people, while not stealing very much themselves. Iraq, Afghanistan and suicide murder is really simply an extreme example of this. Why I come back to it is that the people feel they are doing Allah's will. Happy slappers usually say they have nothing better to do. The fundamental fact about Western crime is that very little of it is to do with personal gain or greed. If someone were to come along in the guise of social simulation and offer a reduction in these costs the research would pay for itself many times over. SocSim research into peace and conflict studies isn't new. And some people in the community work on the Iraq/Afghanistan issue (for the US). That is the way things should be done. I agree absolutely. We could in fact take steepest descent (Calculus) and GAs and combine them together in a single composite program. This would in fact be quite a useful exercise. Just a note: Social simulation is not so much about GAs. You use agent systems and equation systems. Often you mix both in that you define the agent's behavior and the environment via equations, let the sim run and then describe the results in statistical terms or with curve fitting in equations again. One last point. You say freeloading can cause o society to disintegrate. One society that has come pretty damn close to disintegration is Iraq. The deaths in Iraq were very much due to sectarian blood letting. Unselfishness if you like. Unselfishness gone wrong is a symptom, not a cause. The causes for failed states are different. Axiomatic contradiction. Cannot occur in a mathematical system. -
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote What we would want in a *friendly* system would be a set of utilitarian axioms. If we program a machine for winning a war, we must think well what we mean by winning. (Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, 1948) It is also important that AGI is fully axiomatic and proves that 1+1=2 by set theory, as Russell did. Quoting the two important statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Consistency_and_criticisms Gödel's first incompleteness theorem showed that Principia could not be both consistent and complete. and Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that no formal system extending basic arithmetic can be used to prove its own consistency. So in effect your AGI is either crippled but safe or powerful but potentially behaves different from your axiomatic intentions. We will need morality to be axiomatically defined. As constraints, possibly. But we can only check the AGI in runtime for certain behaviors (i.e., while it's active), but we can't prove in advance whether it will break the constraints or not. Get me right: We can do a lot with such formal specifications and we should do them where necessary or appropriate, but we have to understand that our set of guaranteed behavior is a proper subset of the set of all possible behaviors the AGI can execute. It's heuristics in the end. Unselfishness going wrong is in fact a frightening thought. It would in AGI be a symptom of incompatible axioms. Which can happen in a complex system. Suppose system A is monitoring system B. If system Bs resources are being used up A can shut down processes in A. I talked about computer gobledegook. I also have the feeling that with AGI we should be able to get intelligible advice (in NL) about what was going wrong. For this reason it would not be possible to overload AGI. This isn't going to guarantee that system A, B, etc. behave in all ways as intended, except they are all special purpose systems (here: narrow AI). If A, B etc. are AGIs, then this checking is just an heuristic, no guarantee or proof. In a resource limited society freeloading is the biggest issue. All societies are and will be constrained by limited resources. The fundamental fact about Western crime is that very little of it is to do with personal gain or greed. Not that sure whether this statement is correct. It feels wrong from what I know about human behavior. Unselfishness gone wrong is a symptom, not a cause. The causes for failed states are different. Axiomatic contradiction. Cannot occur in a mathematical system. See above... --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
On 28 July 2010 19:56, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: Ian Parker wrote What we would want in a *friendly* system would be a set of utilitarian axioms. If we program a machine for winning a war, we must think well what we mean by winning. I wasn't thinking about winning a war, I was much more thinking about sexual morality and men kissing. Winning a war is achieving your political objectives in the war. Simple definition. (Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, 1948) It is also important that AGI is fully axiomatic and proves that 1+1=2 by set theory, as Russell did. Quoting the two important statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Consistency_and_criticisms Gödel's first incompleteness theorem showed that Principia could not be both consistent and complete. and Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that no formal system extending basic arithmetic can be used to prove its own consistency. So in effect your AGI is either crippled but safe or powerful but potentially behaves different from your axiomatic intentions. You have to state what your axioms are. Gödel's theorem does indeed state that. You do have to make therefore some statements which are unprovable. What I was in fact thinking in terms of was something like Mizar. Mathematics starts off with simple ideas. The axioms which we cannot prove should be listed. You can't prove them. Let's list them and all the assumptions. If we have a Mizar proof we assume things, and argue the case for a theorem on what we have assumed. What you should be able to do is get from the ideas of Russell and Bourbaki to something really meaty like Fermat's Last Theorem, or the Riemann hypothesis. The organization of Mizar (and Alcor which is a front end) is very much a part of AGI. Alcor has in fact to do a similar job to Google in terms of a search for theorems. Mizar though is different from Google in that we have lemmas. You prove something by linking the lemmas up. Suppose I were to search for Riemann Hypothesis. Alcor should give me all the theorems that depend on it. It should tell me about the density of primes. It should tell me about the Goldbach conjecture, proved by Hardy and Littlewood to depend on Riemann. Google is a step towards AGI. An Alcor which could produce chains of argument and find lemmas would be a big step to AGI. Could Mizar contain knowledge which was non mathematical? In a sense it already can. Mizar will contain Riemanian differential geometry. This is simply a piece of pure maths. I am allowed to make a conjecture, an axiom if you like that Riemann's differential geometry is in the shape of General relativity the way in which the Universe works. I have stated this as an unproven assertion, one that has been constantly verified experimentally but unproven in the mathematical universe. We will need morality to be axiomatically defined. As constraints, possibly. But we can only check the AGI in runtime for certain behaviors (i.e., while it's active), but we can't prove in advance whether it will break the constraints or not. Get me right: We can do a lot with such formal specifications and we should do them where necessary or appropriate, but we have to understand that our set of guaranteed behavior is a proper subset of the set of all possible behaviors the AGI can execute. It's heuristics in the end. The heuristics could be tested in an off line system. Unselfishness going wrong is in fact a frightening thought. It would in AGI be a symptom of incompatible axioms. Which can happen in a complex system. Only if the definitions are vague. The definition of happiness is vague. Better to have a system based on *democracy* in some form or other. The beauty of Matt's system is that we would remain ultimately in charge of the system. We make rules such as no imprisonment without trial, minimum of laws restriction personal freedom (men kissing), separation of powers in the judiciary and executive and the reolution of disputed without violence. These are I repeat *not* fundamental philosophical principles but rules which our civilization has devised and have been found to work. I have mentioned before that we could have more than 1 AGI system. All the *derived* principles would be tested off line on another AGI system. Suppose system A is monitoring system B. If system Bs resources are being used up A can shut down processes in A. I talked about computer gobledegook. I also have the feeling that with AGI we should be able to get intelligible advice (in NL) about what was going wrong. For this reason it would not be possible to overload AGI. This isn't going to guarantee that system A, B, etc. behave in all ways as intended, except they are all special purpose systems (here: narrow AI). If A, B etc. are AGIs, then this checking is just an heuristic, no guarantee or proof. In a resource limited society freeloading is the biggest
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote If we program a machine for winning a war, we must think well what we mean by winning. I wasn't thinking about winning a war, I was much more thinking about sexual morality and men kissing. If we program a machine for doing X, we must think well what we mean by X. Now clearer? Winning a war is achieving your political objectives in the war. Simple definition. Then define your political objectives. No holes, no ambiguity, no forgotten cases. Or does the AGI ask for our feedback during mission? If yes, down to what detail? The axioms which we cannot prove should be listed. You can't prove them. Let's list them and all the assumptions. And then what? Cripple the AGI by applying just those theorems we can prove? That excludes of course all those we're uncertain about. And it's not so much a single theorem that's problematic but a system of axioms and inference rules that changes its properties when you modify it or that is incomplete from the beginning. Example (very plain just to make it clearer what I'm talking about): The natural numbers N are closed against addition. But N is not closed against subtraction, since n - m 0 where m n. You can prove the theorem that subtracting a positive number from another number decreases it: http://us2.metamath.org:88/mpegif/ltsubpos.html but you can still have a formal system that runs into problems. In the case of N it's missing closedness, i.e., undefined area. Now transfer this simple example to formal systems in general. You have to prove every formal system as it is, not just a single theorem. The behavior of an AGI isn't a single theorem but a system. The heuristics could be tested in an off line system. Exactly. But by definition heuristics are incomplete, their solution space is smaller than the set of all solutions. No guarantee for the optimal solution, just probabilities 1, elaborated hints. Unselfishness going wrong is in fact a frightening thought. It would in AGI be a symptom of incompatible axioms. Which can happen in a complex system. Only if the definitions are vague. I bet against this. Better to have a system based on *democracy* in some form or other. The rules you mention are goals and constraints. But they are heuristics you check during runtime. --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
