Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I guess the trans-infinite is computable, given infinite resources. It doesn't make sense to me except that the infinite does not exist as a number-like object, it is an active process of incrementation or something like that. End of Count. --- 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] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I see that erasure is from an alternative definition for a Turing Machine. I am not sure if a four state Turing Machine could be used to make Solomonoff Induction convergent. If all programs that required working memory greater than the length of the output string could be eliminated then that would have an impact on convergent feasibility. --- 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] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I see that erasure is from an alternative definition for a Turing Machine. I am not sure if a four state Turing Machine could be used to make Solomonoff Induction convergent. If all programs that required working memory greater than the length of the output string could be eliminated then that would have an impact on convergent feasibility. But then again this is getting back to my whole thesis. By constraining the definition of all possible programs sufficiently, we should be left with a definable subset of programs that could be used in an actual computations. I want to study more to try to better understand Abrams definition of a convergent derivation of Solomonoff Induction. Jim Bromer --- 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
[agi] Shhh!
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching') every
possible irrational number - given infinite resources. The infinite is not
a number-like object, it is an active form of incrementation or
concatenation. So I can write an algorithm that can write *every* finite
state of *every* possible number. However, it would take another algorithm
to 'prove' it. Given an irrational number, this other algorithm could find
the infinite incrementation for every digit of the given number. Each
possible number (including the incrementation of those numbers that cannot
be represented in truncated form) is embedded within a single infinite
infinite incrementation of digits that is produced by the algorithm, so the
second algorithm would have to calculate where you would find each digit of
the given irrational number by increment. But the thing is, both functions
would be computable and provable. (I haven't actually figured the second
algorithm out yet, but it is not a difficult problem.)
This means that the Trans-Infinite Is Computable. But don't tell anyone
about this, it's a secret.
---
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
[agi] Re: Shhh!
I think I can write an abbreviated version, but there would only be a few
people in the world who would both believe me and understand why it would
work.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching') every
possible irrational number - given infinite resources. The infinite is not
a number-like object, it is an active form of incrementation or
concatenation. So I can write an algorithm that can write *every* finite
state of *every* possible number. However, it would take another
algorithm to 'prove' it. Given an irrational number, this other algorithm
could find the infinite incrementation for every digit of the given number.
Each possible number (including the incrementation of those numbers that
cannot be represented in truncated form) is embedded within a single
infinite infinite incrementation of digits that is produced by the
algorithm, so the second algorithm would have to calculate where you would
find each digit of the given irrational number by increment. But the thing
is, both functions would be computable and provable. (I haven't actually
figured the second algorithm out yet, but it is not a difficult problem.)
This means that the Trans-Infinite Is Computable. But don't tell anyone
about this, it's a secret.
---
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
[agi] Walker Lake
Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out, you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing of them. Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more. Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case other nations deploy such weapons. How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military might. Doesn't it sound ethical to insist that a human being decide when to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound fair to require the decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs? Steve --- 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] Walker Lake
How about you go to war yourself or send your children. I'd rather send a robot. It's safer for both the soldier and the people on the ground because you don't have to shoot first, ask questions later. And you're right, we shouldn't monitor anyone. We should just allow terrorists to talk openly to plot attacks on us. After all, I'd rather have my privacy than my life. dumb. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out, you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing of them. Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more. Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case other nations deploy such weapons. How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military might. Doesn't it sound ethical to insist that a human being decide when to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound fair to require the decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs? Steve *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] Walker Lake
Steve:How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? You might as well ask for a ban on war (or, perhaps, aggression). I strongly recommend reading the SciAm July 2010 issue on robotic warfare. The US already operates from memory somewhere between 13,000 and 20,000 unmanned weapons. Unmanned war (obviously with some but ever less human supervision) IS the future of war. If you used a little lateral thinking, you'd realise that this may well be a v.g. thing - let robots kill each other rather than humans - whoever's robots win, wins the war. It would be interesting to compare Afghan./Vietnam - I imagine the kill count is considerably down (but correct me) - *because* of superior, more automated technology. --- 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] Walker Lake
I don't often request list moderation, but if this kind of off-topic spam and clueless trolling doesn't call for it, nothing does, so: I hereby request that a moderator take appropriate action. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out, you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing of them. Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more. Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case other nations deploy such weapons. How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military might. Doesn't it sound ethical to insist that a human being decide when to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound fair to require the decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs? Steve *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
[agi] Robot Warriors - the closest to real AGI?
[Here's the SciAm article - go see the illustrations too. We should really be discussing all this technologically because it strikes me as the closest to real AGI there is - and probably where we're likely to see the soonest advances] WAR MACHINES Robots on and above the battlefield are bringing about the most profound transformation of warfare since the advent of the atom bomb By P. W. Singer Back in the early 1970s, a handful of scientists, engineers, defense contractors and U.S. Air Force officers got together to form a professional group. They were essentially trying to solve the same problem: how to build machines that can operate on their own without human control and to figure out ways to convince both the public and a reluctant Pentagon brass that robots on the battlefield are a good idea. For decades they met once or twice a year, in relative obscurity, to talk over technical issues, exchange gossip and renew old friendships. This once cozy group, the Association for Unmanned Systems International, now encompasses more than 1,500 member companies and organizations from 55 countries. The growth happened so fast, in fact, that it found itself in something of an identity crisis. At one of its meetings in San Diego, it even hired a master storyteller to help the group pull together the narrative of the amazing changes in robotic technology. As one attendee summed up, Where have we come from? Where are we? And where should we-and where do we want to-go? What prompted the group's soulsearching is one of the most profound changes in modern warfare since the advent of gunpowder or the airplane: an astonishingly rapid rise in the use of robots on the battlefield. Not a single robot accompanied the U.S. advance from Kuwait toward Baghdad in 2003. Since then, 7,000 unmanned aircraft and another 12,000 ground vehicles have entered the U.S. military inventory, entrusted with missions that range from seeking out snipers to bombing the hideouts of al-Qaeda higher-ups in Pakistan. The world's most powerful fighting forces, which once eschewed robots as unbecoming to their warrior culture, have now embraced a war of the machines as a means of combating an irregular enemy that triggers remote explosions with cell phones and then blends back into the crowd. These robotic systems are not only having a big effect on how this new type of warfare is fought, but they also have initiated a set of contentious arguments about the implications of using ever more autonomous and intelligent machines in battle. Moving soldiers out of harm's way may save lives, but the growing use of robots also raises deep political, legal and ethical questions about the fundamental nature of warfare and whether these technologie could inadvertently make wars easier to start. The earliest threads of this story arguably hark back to the 1921 play R.U.R., in which Czech writer Karel ^C apek coined the word robot to describe mechanical servants that eventually rise up against their human masters. The word was packed with meaning, because it derived from the Czech word for servitude and the older Slavic word for slave, historically linked to the robotniks, peasants who had revolted against rich landowners in the 1800s. This theme of robots taking on the work we don't want to do but then ultimately assuming control is a staple of science fiction that continues today in The Terminator and The Matrix. Today roboticists invoke the descriptors unmanned or remote-operated to avoid Hollywood- fueled visions of machines that are plotting our demise. In the simplest terms, robots are machines built to operate in a sense-think-act paradigm. That is, they have sensors that gather develinformation about the world. Those data are then relayed to computer processors, and perhaps artificial-intelligence software, that use them to make appropriate decisions. Finally, based on that information, mechanical systems known as effectors carry out some physical action on the world around them. Robots do not have to be anthropomorphic, as is the other Hollywood trope of a man in a metal suit. The size and shape of the systems that are beginning to carry out these actions vary widely and rarely evoke the image of C-3PO or the Terminator. The Global Positioning Satellite system, videogame- like remote controls and a host of other technologies have made robots both useful and usable on the battlefield during the past decade. The increased ability to observe, pinpoint and then attack targets in hostile settings without having to expose the human operator to danger became a priority after the 9/11 attacks, and each new use of the systems on the ground created a success story that had broader repercussions. As an example, in the first few months of the Afghan campaign in 2001, a prototype of the PackBot, now used extensively to defuse bombs, was sent into the field for testing. The soldiers liked it so much that they would not return it to its manufacturer, iRobot,
Re: [agi] Walker Lake
Matt, I grant you your points, but they miss the my point. Where is this ultimately leading - to a superpower with the ability to kill its opponents without any risk to itself. This may be GREAT so long as you agree with and live under that superpower, but how about when things change for the worse? What if we get another Bush who lies to congress and wages unprovoked war with other nations, only next time with vast armies of robots ala *The Clone Wars*? Sure the kill rate will be almost perfect. Sure we can more accurately kill their heads of government without killing so many civilians along the way. How about when you flee future U.S. tyranny, and your new destination becomes valued by the U.S. enough to send a bunch of robots in to seize it. Your last thought could be of the U.S. robot that is killing YOU. Oops, too late to reconsider where this is all going. Note in passing that our standard of living has been gradually declining as the wealth of the world is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Note in passing that the unemployment situation is looking bleaker and bleaker, with no prospect for improvement in sight. Do you REALLY want to concentrate SO much power in the hands of SUCH a dysfunctional government? If this doesn't work out well, what would be the options for improvement? This appears to be a one-way street with no exit. Steve = On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Steve:How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? You might as well ask for a ban on war (or, perhaps, aggression). I strongly recommend reading the SciAm July 2010 issue on robotic warfare. The US already operates from memory somewhere between 13,000 and 20,000 unmanned weapons. Unmanned war (obviously with some but ever less human supervision) IS the future of war. If you used a little lateral thinking, you'd realise that this may well be a v.g. thing - let robots kill each other rather than humans - whoever's robots win, wins the war. It would be interesting to compare Afghan./Vietnam - I imagine the kill count is considerably down (but correct me) - *because* of superior, more automated technology. *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 Int'l Relations
On 1 August 2010 21:18, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: Ian Parker wrote McNamara's dictum seems on the face of it to contradict the validity of Psychology as a science. I don't think so. That in unforseen events people switch to improvisation isn't suprising. Even an AGI, confronted with a novel situation and lacking data and models and rules for that, has to switch to ad-hoc heuristics. Psychology, if is is a valid science can be used for modelling. True. And it's used for that purpose. In fact some models of psychology are so good that the simulation's results are consistent with what is empirically found in the real world. Some of what McNamara has to say seems to me to be a little bit contradictory. On the one hand he espouses *gut feeling*. On the other he says you should be prepared to change your mind. I don't see the contradiction. Changing one's mind refers to one's assumption and conceptual framings. You always operate under uncertainty and should be open for re-evaluation of what you believe. And the lower the probability of an event, the lesser are you prepared for it and you switch to gut feelings since you lack empirical experience. Likely that one's gut feelings operate within one's frame of mind. So these are two different levels. This seems to link in with the very long running set of postings on Solomonoff (or should it be -ov -oв in Cyrillic). Laplace assigned a probability of 50% to something we knew absolutely nothing about. I feel that *gut feelings* are quite often wrong. Freeloading is very much believed in by the man in the street but it is wroong and very much oversimnplified. Could I tell you something of the background of John Prescott. He is very much a bruiser. He has a Trade Union background and has not had much education. Many such people have a sense of inverted snobbery. Alan Sugar says that he got around the World speaking only English, yet a firm that employs linguists can more than double its sales overseas. Of course as I think we all agree one of the main characteristics of AGI is its ability to understand NL. AGI will thus be polyglot. Indeed one of the main tests will be translation. What is the difference between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel?. First Turing question! John Prescott at the Chilcot Iraq inquiry said that the test of politicians was not hindsight, but courage and leadership. What the does he mean. Rule of thumb is that it's better to do something than to do nothing. You act, others have to react. As long as you lead the game, you can correct your own errors. But when you hesitate, the other parties will move first and you eat what they hand out to you. And don't forget that the people still prefer alpha-males that lead, not those that deeply think. It's more important to unite the tribe with screams and jumps against the enemy than to reason about budgets or rule of law--gawd how boring... :) Yes, but an AGI system will have to balance budgets. In fact narrow AI is making a contribution in the shape of Forex. I have claimed that perhaps AGI will consist of a library of narrow AI. Forex, or rather software of the Forex type will be an integral part of AGI. Could Forex manage the European Central Bank? With modifications I think yes. AGI will have to think about the rule of law as well, otherwise it will be an intolerable and dangerous. The alpha male syndrome is something we have to get away from, if we are going to make progress of any kind. It seems that *getting things right* is not a priority for politicians. Keeping things running is the priority. Thins will run, sort of, even if bad decisions are taken. --- Now to the next posting --- This is an interesting article. Indeed. Google is certain to uncover the *real motivators.* Sex and power. Are you in effect claiming that the leaders of (say) terrorist movements are motivated by power and do not have any ideology. It has been said that war is individual unselfishness combined with corporate selfishness (interesting quote to remember). I am not sure. What are the motivations of the unselfish foot soldiers? How do leaders obtain their power. As Mr Cameron rightly said the ISI is exporting terror. British Pakistanis though are free agents. They do not have to be *exported* by the ISI. Why do they allow themselves to be? They are *not* conscripts. - 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:
Re: [agi] AGI Int'l Relations
Steve Richfield wrote: I would feel a **LOT** better if someone explained SOME scenario to eventually emerge from our current economic mess. What economic mess? http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdictype=lstrail=falsenselm=hmet_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cdscale_y=linind_y=falserdim=countryidim=country:USAtdim=truetstart=-31561920tunit=Ytlen=48hl=endl=en Unemployment appears to be permanent and getting worse, When you pay people not to work, they are less inclined to work. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 11:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Int'l Relations Jan I can see that I didn't state one of my points clearly enough... On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: My simple (and completely unacceptable) cure for this is to tax savings, to force the money back into the economy. You have either consumption or savings. The savings are put back into the economy in form of credits to those who invest the money. Our present economic problem is that those credits aren't being turned over fast enough to keep the economic engine running well. At present, with present systems in place, there is little motivation to quickly turn over one's wealth, and lots of motivation to very carefully protect it. The result is that most of the wealth of the world is just sitting there in various accounts, and is NOT being spent/invested on various business propositions to benefit the population of the world. We need to do SOMETHING to get the wealth out of the metaphorical mattresses and back into the economy. Taxation is about the only effective tool that the government hasn't already dulled beyond utility. However, taxation doesn't stand a chance without the cooperation of other countries to do the same. There seems to be enough lobbying power in the hands of those with the money to stop any such efforts, or at least to leave enough safe havens to make such efforts futile. I would feel a **LOT** better if someone explained SOME scenario to eventually emerge from our current economic mess. Unemployment appears to be permanent and getting worse, as does the research situation. All I hear are people citing stock prices and claiming that the economy is turning around, when I see little connection between stock prices and on-the-street economy. This is an IR problems of monumental proportions. What would YOU do about it? Steve 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] Walker Lake
Steve Richfield wrote: How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? How about a ban on suicide bombers to level the playing field? 1984 has truly arrived. No it hasn't. People want public surveillance. It is also necessary for AGI. In order for machines to do what you want, they have to know what you know. In order for a global brain to use that knowledge, it has to be public. AGI has to be a global brain because it is too expensive to build any other way, and because it would be too dangerous if the whole world didn't control it. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:40:20 AM Subject: [agi] Walker Lake Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out, you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing of them. Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more. Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case other nations deploy such weapons. How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military might. Doesn't it sound ethical to insist that a human being decide when to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound fair to require the decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs? Steve 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] Re: Shhh!
Jim, you are thinking out loud. There is no such thing as trans-infinite. How
about posting when you actually solve the problem.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com
To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 9:06:53 AM
Subject: [agi] Re: Shhh!
I think I can write an abbreviated version, but there would only be a few
people
in the world who would both believe me and understand why it would work.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching') every
possible irrational number - given infinite resources. The infinite is not a
number-like object, it is an active form of incrementation or concatenation.
So
I can write an algorithm that can write every finite state of every possible
number. However, it would take another algorithm to 'prove' it. Given an
irrational number, this other algorithm could find the infinite incrementation
for every digit of the given number. Each possible number (including
the incrementation of those numbers that cannot be represented in truncated
form) is embedded within a single infinite infinite incrementation of digits
that is produced by the algorithm, so the second algorithm would have to
calculate where you would find each digit of the given irrational number by
increment. But the thing is, both functions would be computable and provable.
(I haven't actually figured the second algorithm out yet, but it is not
a difficult problem.)
This means that the Trans-Infinite Is Computable. But don't tell anyone about
this, it's a secret.
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] Shhh!
Jim,
:) Looks to me like you are developing your own internally consistent
mathematics without worrying about relating it back to the standard stuff.
(How do you define the result of running a program continuum long? Is the
result unique?) This is great, but it might be worth your while to later
come back to basic computability theory and see if/how you can present your
ideas as an extension of it.
Whenever I have done this, I've later found out that whatever-great-idea has
already been thought of (but with very different terminology, of course). I
take this as evidence that there is a very strong mental landscape... if
you go in a particular direction there is a natural series of landmarks,
including both great ideas and pitfalls that everyone runs into. (Different
people take different amounts of time to climb out of the pitfalls, though.
Some may keep looking for gold at a dead end for a long time.)
--Abram
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching') every
possible irrational number - given infinite resources. The infinite is not
a number-like object, it is an active form of incrementation or
concatenation. So I can write an algorithm that can write *every* finite
state of *every* possible number. However, it would take another
algorithm to 'prove' it. Given an irrational number, this other algorithm
could find the infinite incrementation for every digit of the given number.
Each possible number (including the incrementation of those numbers that
cannot be represented in truncated form) is embedded within a single
infinite infinite incrementation of digits that is produced by the
algorithm, so the second algorithm would have to calculate where you would
find each digit of the given irrational number by increment. But the thing
is, both functions would be computable and provable. (I haven't actually
figured the second algorithm out yet, but it is not a difficult problem.)
This means that the Trans-Infinite Is Computable. But don't tell anyone
about this, it's a secret.
*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
--
Abram Demski
http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic
---
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] Shhh!
Abram Wrote: I take this as evidence that there is a very strong mental landscape... if you go in a particular direction there is a natural series of landmarks, including both great ideas and pitfalls that everyone runs into. (Different people take different amounts of time to climb out of the pitfalls, though. Some may keep looking for gold at a dead end for a long time.) That is a very nice description of AI research and the pitfalls we come across in our quest. :) Dave --- 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] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim, Interestingly, the formalization of Solomonoff induction I'm most familiar with uses a construction that relates the space of programs with the real numbers just as you say. This formulation may be due to Solomonoff, or perhaps Hutter... not sure. I re-formulated it to gloss over that in order to make it simpler; I'm pretty sure the version I gave is equivalent in the relevant aspects. However, some notes on the original construction. Programs are created by flipping coins to come up with the 1s and 0s. We are to think of it like this: whenever the computer reaches the end of the program and tries to continue on, we flip a coin to decide what the next bit of the program will be. We keep doing this for as long as the computer wants more bits of instruction. This framework makes room for infinitely long programs, but makes them infinitely improbable-- formally, they have probability 0. (We could alter the setup to allow them an infinitesimal probability.) Intuitively, this means that if we keep flipping a coin to tell the computer what to do, eventually we will either create an infinite loop-back (so the computer keeps executing the already-written parts of the program and never asks for more) or write out the HALT command. Avoiding doing one or the other forever is just too improbable. This also means all real numbers are output by some program! It just may be one which is infinitely long. However, all the programs that slip past my time bound as T increases to infinity will have measure 0, meaning they don't add anything to the sum. This means the convergence is unaffected. Note: in this construction, program space is *still* a well-defined entity. --Abram On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Abram, This is a very interesting function. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. However, I do not believe that does, in any way, prove or indicate that Solomonoff Induction is convergent. I want to discuss the function but I need to take more time to study some stuff and to work various details out. (Although I have thought a lot about it, I am writing this under a sense of deadline, so it may not be well composed.) My argument was that Solomonoff's conjecture, which was based (as far as I can tell) on 'all possible programs', was fundamentally flawed because the idea of 'all possible programs' is not a programmable definition. All possible programs is a domain, not a class of programs that can be feasibly defined in the form of an algorithm that could 'reach' all the programs. The domain of all possible programs is trans-infinite just as the domain of irrational numbers are. Why do I believe this? Because if we imagine that infinite algorithms are computable, then we could compute irrational numbers. That is, there are programs that, given infinite resources, could compute irrational numbers. We can use the binomial theorem, for example to compute the square root of 2. And we can use trial and error methods to compute the nth root of any number. So that proves that there are infinite irrational numbers that can be computed by algorithms that run for infinity. So what does this have to do with Solomonoff's conjecture of all possible programs? Well, if I could prove that any individual irrational number could be computed (with programs that ran through infinity) then I might be able to prove that there are trans-infinite programs. If I could prove that some trans-infinite subset of irrational numbers could be computed then I might be able to prove that 'all possible programs' is a trans-infinite class. Now Abram said that since his sum, based on runtime and program length, is convergent it can prove that Solomonoff Induction is convergent. Even assuming that his convergent sum method could be fixed up a little, I suspect that this time-length bound is misleading. Since a Turing Machine allows for erasures this means that a program could last longer than his time parameter and still produce an output string that matches the given string. And if 'all possible programs' is a trans-infinite class then there are programs that you are going to miss. Your encoding method will miss trans-infinite programs (unless you have trans-cended the trans-infinite.) However, I want to study the function and some other ideas related to this kind of thing a little more. It is an interesting function. Unfortunately I also have to get back to other-worldly things. Jim Bromer On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, I'll argue that solomonoff probabilities are in fact like Pi, that is, computable in the limit. I still do not understand why you think these combinations are necessary. It is not necessary to make some sort of ordering of the sum to get it to converge: ordering only matters for infinite sums which include negative numbers. (Perhaps that's where
Re: [agi] Walker Lake
Matt, On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Steve Richfield wrote: How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated weapons? How about a ban on suicide bombers to level the playing field? Of course we already have that. Unfortunately, one begets the other. Hence, we seem to have a choice, neither or both. I vote for neither. 1984 has truly arrived. No it hasn't. People want public surveillance. I'm not sure what you mean by public surveillance. Monitoring private phone calls? Monitoring otherwise unused web cams? Monitoring your output when you use the toilet? Where, if anywhere, do YOU draw the line? It is also necessary for AGI. In order for machines to do what you want, they have to know what you know. Unfortunately, knowing everything, any use of this information will either be to my benefit, or my detriment. Do you foresee any way to limit use to only beneficial use? BTW, decades ago I developed the plan of, when my kids got in some sort of trouble in school or elsewhere, to represent their interests as well as possible, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not. This worked EXTREMELY well for me, and for several other families who have tried this. The point is that to successfully represent their interests, I had to know what was happening. Potential embarrassment and explainability limited the kids' actions. I wonder if the same would work for AGIs? In order for a global brain to use that knowledge, it has to be public. Again, where do you draw the line between public and private? AGI has to be a global brain because it is too expensive to build any other way, and because it would be too dangerous if the whole world didn't control it. I'm not sure what you mean by control. Here is the BIG question in my own mind, that I have asked in various ways, so far without any recognizable answer: There are plainly lots of things wrong with our society. We got here by doing what we wanted, and by having our representatives do what we wanted them to do. Clearly some social re-engineering is in our future, if we are to thrive in the foreseeable future. All changes are resisted by some, and I suspect that some needed changes will be resisted by most, and perhaps nearly everyone. Disaster scenarios aside, what would YOU have YOUR AGI do to navigate this future? To help guide your answer, I see that the various proposed systems of ethics would prevent breaking the eggs needed to make a good futuristic omelet. I suspect that completely democratic systems have run their course. Against this is letting AGI loose has its own unfathomable hazards. I've been hanging around here for quite a while, and I don't yet see any success path to work toward. I'm on your side in that any successful AGI would have to have the information and the POWER to succeed, akin to *Colossus, the Forbin Project*, which I personally see as more of a success story than a horror scenario. Absent that, AGIs will only add to our present problems. What is the success path that you see? Steve --- 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 Int'l Relations
Matt, On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Steve Richfield wrote: I would feel a **LOT** better if someone explained SOME scenario to eventually emerge from our current economic mess. What economic mess? http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdictype=lstrail=falsenselm=hmet_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cdscale_y=linind_y=falserdim=countryidim=country:USAtdim=truetstart=-31561920tunit=Ytlen=48hl=endl=en Perhaps you failed to note the great disparity between the US and the World's performance since 2003, or that with each year, greater percentages of the GDP is going into fewer and fewer pockets. Kids starting out now don't really have a chance. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdimet=ny_gdp_mktp_cdtdim=truedl=enhl=enq=world+gdp#met=ny_gdp_mktp_cdidim=country:USAtdim=true Unemployment appears to be permanent and getting worse, When you pay people not to work, they are less inclined to work. That does NOT explain that there are MANY unemployed for every available job, and that many are falling off the end of their benefits with nothing to help them. This view may have been true long ago, but it is now dated and wrong. Steve --- 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
[agi] Brief mention of bio-AGI in the Boston Globe...
Open science is, to some, humanity's best hopehttp://www.google.com/url?sa=Xq=http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/08/02/biotech_movement_hopes_to_spur_rise_of_citizen_scientists/ct=gacad=:s1:f2:v0:d1:i0:lt:e0:p0:t1280774083:cd=sfIgD21-SMcusg=AFQjCNHAxjADEHZpOGQP6cK4G6jyO3wj2g Boston Globe “What is really needed to cure diseases and extend life,'' *Goertzel* said, “is to link together all available bio data in a vast public database, *...* -- Tip: Use a minus sign (-) in front of terms in your query that you want to exclude.Learn morehttp://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861hl=engl=source=alertsmailcd=sfIgD21-SMccad=:s1:f2:v0:d1: . Removehttp://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=AB2Xq4hUEKvcJpGOdQ3Ohxm954kNjKjX_dH0vGghl=engl=source=alertsmailcd=sfIgD21-SMccad=:s1:f2:v0:d1:this alert. Createhttp://www.google.com/alerts?hl=engl=source=alertsmailcd=sfIgD21-SMccad=:s1:f2:v0:d1:another alert. Managehttp://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=engl=source=alertsmailcd=sfIgD21-SMccad=:s1:f2:v0:d1:your alerts. -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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
