[agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
To All, I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, heidenbugs, etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that hopefully others here can shed some light on. People often say things that indicate their limited mental capacity, or at least their inability to comprehend specific situations. 1) One of my favorites are people who say I had no choice but to ..., which of course indicates that they are clearly intellectually challenged because there are ALWAYS other choices, though it may be difficult to find one that is in all respects superior. While theoretically this statement could possibly be correct, in practice I have never found this to be the case. 2) Another one recently from this very forum was If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This may be theoretically true, but in fact was, as usual, made as a statement as to why the author was summarily dismissing an apparent opportunity of GREAT value. This dismissal of something BECAUSE of its great value would seem to severely limit the authors prospects for success in life, which probably explains why he spends so much time here challenging others who ARE doing something with their lives. 3) I used to evaluate inventions for some venture capitalists. Sometimes I would find that some basic law of physics, e.g. conservation of energy, would have to be violated for the thing to work. When I explained this to the inventors, their inevitable reply was Yea, and they also said that the Wright Brothers' plane would never fly. To this, I explained that the Wright Brothers had invested ~200 hours of effort working with their crude homemade wind tunnel, and ask what the inventors have done to prove that their own invention would work. 4) One old stupid standby, spoken when you have make a clear point that shows that their argument is full of holes That is just your opinion. No, it is a proven fact for you to accept or refute. 5) Perhaps you have your own pet statements of stupidity? I suspect that there may be enough of these to dismiss some significant fraction of prospective users of beyond-human-capability (I just hate the word intelligence) programs. In short, semantic analysis of these statements typically would NOT find them to be conspicuously false, and hence even an AGI would be tempted to accept them. However, their use almost universally indicates some short-circuit in thinking. The present Dr. Eliza program could easily recognize such statements. OK, so what? What should an AI program do when it encounters a stupid user? Should some attempt be made to explain stupidity to someone who is almost certainly incapable of comprehending their own stupidity? Stupidity is forever is probably true, especially when expressed by an adult. Note my own dismissal of a some past posters for insufficient mental ability to understand certain subjects, whereupon they invariably come back repeating the SAME flawed logic, after I carefully explained the breaks in their logic. Clearly, I was just wasting my effort by continuing to interact with these people. Note that providing a stupid user with ANY output is probably a mistake, because they will almost certainly misconstrue it in some way. Perhaps it might be possible to dumb down the output to preschool-level, at least that (small) part of the output that can be accurately stated in preschool terms. Eventually as computers continue to self-evolve, we will ALL be categorized as some sort of stupid, and receive stupid-adapted output. I wonder whether, ultimately, computers will have ANYTHING to say to us, like any more than we now say to our dogs. Perhaps the final winner of the Reverse Turing Test will remain completely silent?! You don't explain to your dog why you can't pay the rent from *The Fall of Colossus*. Any thoughts? 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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
sTEVE:I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given that there are zero but zero examples of AGI. Don't you think it would be a good idea to begin at the beginning? With initial AGI? Rather than advanced AGI? --- 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: So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Abram: Yep. I meant, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit in the program's that are originally used to produce the *prior probabilities* involve the use of randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0? I have not been able to find any evidence that it was. I thought that my question was clear but on second thought I guess it wasn't. I think that the part about the coin flips was only a method to express that he was interested in the probability that a particular string would be produced from all possible programs, so that when actually testing the prior probability of a particular string the program that was to be run would have to be randomly generated. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, Your function may be convergent but it is not a probability. True! All the possibilities sum to less than 1. There are ways of addressing this (ie, multiply by a normalizing constant which must also be approximated in a convergent manner), but for the most part adherents of Solomonoff induction don't worry about this too much. What we care about, mostly, is comparing different hyotheses to decide which to favor. The normalizing constant doesn't help us here, so it usually isn't mentioned. You said that Solomonoff's original construction involved flipping a coin for the next bit. What good does that do? Your intuition is that running totally random programs to get predictions will just produce garbage, and that is fine. The idea of Solomonoff induction, though, is that it will produce systematically less garbage than just flipping coins to get predictions. Most of the garbage programs will be knocked out of the running by the data itself. This is supposed to be the least garbage we can manage without domain-specific knowledge This is backed up with the proof of dominance, which we haven't talked about yet, but which is really the key argument for the optimality of Solomonoff induction. And how does that prove that his original idea was convergent? The proofs of equivalence between all the different formulations of Solomonoff induction are something I haven't cared to look into too deeply. Since his idea is incomputable, there are no algorithms that can be run to demonstrate what he was talking about so the basic idea is papered with all sorts of unverifiable approximations. I gave you a proof of convergence for one such approximation, and if you wish I can modify it to include a normalizing constant to ensure that it is a probability measure. It would be helpful to me if your criticisms were more specific to that proof. So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Yep. Even ignoring the halting problem what kind of result would that give? Well, the general idea is this. An even distribution intuitively represents lack of knowledge. An even distribution over possible data fails horribly, however, predicting white noise. We want to represent the idea that we are very ignorant of what the data might be, but not *that* ignorant. To capture the idea of regularity, ie, similarity between past and future, we instead take an even distribution over *descriptions* of the data. (The distribution in the 2nd version of solomonoff induction that I gave, the one in which the space of possible programs is represented as a continuum, is an even distribution.) This appears to provide a good amount of regularity without too much. --Abram On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Abram, Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get it. Your function may be convergent but it is not a probability. You said that Solomonoff's original construction involved flipping a coin for the next bit. What good does that do? And how does that prove that his original idea was convergent? The thing that is wrong with these explanations is that they are not coherent. Since his idea is incomputable, there are no algorithms that can be run to demonstrate what he was talking about so the basic idea is papered with all sorts of unverifiable approximations. So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Even ignoring the halting problem what kind of result would that give? Have you ever solved the problem for some strings and have you ever tested the solutions using a simulation? Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: 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
Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
Mike, Your reply flies in the face of two obvious facts: 1. I have little interest in what is called AGI here. My interests lie elsewhere, e.g. uploading, Dr. Eliza, etc. I posted this piece for several reasons, as it is directly applicable to Dr. Eliza, and because it casts a shadow on future dreams of AGI. I was hoping that those people who have thought things through regarding AGIs might have some thoughts here. Maybe these people don't (yet) exist?! 2. You seem to think that a walk before you run approach, basically a bottom-up approach to AGI, is the obvious one. It sure isn't obvious to me. Besides, if my statements of stupidity theory is true, then why even bother building AGIs, because we won't even be able to meaningfully discuss things with them. Steve == On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: sTEVE:I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given that there are zero but zero examples of AGI. Don't you think it would be a good idea to begin at the beginning? With initial AGI? Rather than advanced AGI? *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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
Mike Tintner wrote: What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given that there are zero but zero examples of AGI. Machines have already surpassed human intelligence. If you don't think so, try this IQ test. http://mattmahoney.net/iq/ Or do you prefer to define intelligence as more like a human? In that case I agree that AGI will never happen. No machine will ever be more like a human than a human. I really don't care how you define it. Either way, computers are profoundly affecting the way people interact with each other and with the world. Where is the threshold when machines do most of our thinking for us? Who cares as long as the machines still give us the feeling that we are in charge. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 5:57:33 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity sTEVE:I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given that there are zero but zero examples of AGI. Don't you think it would be a good idea to begin at the beginning? With initial AGI? Rather than advanced AGI? 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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
statements of stupidity - some of these are examples of cramming sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Language is both intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, I had no choice but to ... is a compressed summary of potentially vastly complex issues. The mind gets hung-up sometimes on this language of ours. Better off at times to think less using English language and express oneself with a wider spectrum communiqué. Doing a dance and throwing paint in the air for example, as some *primitive* cultures actually do, conveys information also and is medium of expression rather than using a restrictive human chat protocol. BTW the rules of etiquette of the human language protocol are even more potentially restricting though necessary for efficient and standardized data transfer to occur. Like, TCP/IP for example. The Etiquette in TCP/IP is like an OSI layer, akin to human language etiquette. John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] To All, I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, heidenbugs, etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that hopefully others here can shed some light on. People often say things that indicate their limited mental capacity, or at least their inability to comprehend specific situations. 1) One of my favorites are people who say I had no choice but to ..., which of course indicates that they are clearly intellectually challenged because there are ALWAYS other choices, though it may be difficult to find one that is in all respects superior. While theoretically this statement could possibly be correct, in practice I have never found this to be the case. 2) Another one recently from this very forum was If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This may be theoretically true, but in fact was, as usual, made as a statement as to why the author was summarily dismissing an apparent opportunity of GREAT value. This dismissal of something BECAUSE of its great value would seem to severely limit the authors prospects for success in life, which probably explains why he spends so much time here challenging others who ARE doing something with their lives. 3) I used to evaluate inventions for some venture capitalists. Sometimes I would find that some basic law of physics, e.g. conservation of energy, would have to be violated for the thing to work. When I explained this to the inventors, their inevitable reply was Yea, and they also said that the Wright Brothers' plane would never fly. To this, I explained that the Wright Brothers had invested ~200 hours of effort working with their crude homemade wind tunnel, and ask what the inventors have done to prove that their own invention would work. 4) One old stupid standby, spoken when you have make a clear point that shows that their argument is full of holes That is just your opinion. No, it is a proven fact for you to accept or refute. 5) Perhaps you have your own pet statements of stupidity? I suspect that there may be enough of these to dismiss some significant fraction of prospective users of beyond-human-capability (I just hate the word intelligence) programs. In short, semantic analysis of these statements typically would NOT find them to be conspicuously false, and hence even an AGI would be tempted to accept them. However, their use almost universally indicates some short-circuit in thinking. The present Dr. Eliza program could easily recognize such statements. OK, so what? What should an AI program do when it encounters a stupid user? Should some attempt be made to explain stupidity to someone who is almost certainly incapable of comprehending their own stupidity? Stupidity is forever is probably true, especially when expressed by an adult. Note my own dismissal of a some past posters for insufficient mental ability to understand certain subjects, whereupon they invariably come back repeating the SAME flawed logic, after I carefully explained the breaks in their logic. Clearly, I was just wasting my effort by continuing to interact with these people. Note that providing a stupid user with ANY output is probably a mistake, because they will almost certainly misconstrue it in some way. Perhaps it might be possible to dumb down the output to preschool-level, at least that (small) part of the output that can be accurately stated in preschool terms. Eventually as computers continue to self-evolve, we will ALL be categorized as some sort of stupid, and receive stupid-adapted output. I wonder whether, ultimately, computers will have ANYTHING to say to us, like any more than we now say to our dogs. Perhaps the final winner of the Reverse Turing Test will remain completely silent?! You don't explain to your dog why you can't pay the rent from The Fall of Colossus. Any thoughts? Steve
Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
Maybe you could give me one example from the history of technology where machines ran before they could walk? Where they started complex rather than simple? Or indeed from evolution of any kind? Or indeed from human development? Where children started doing complex mental operations like logic, say, or maths or the equivalent before they could speak? Or started running before they could control their arms, roll over, crawl, sit up, haul themselves up, stand up, totter - just went straight to running?** A bottom-up approach, I would have to agree, clearly isn't obvious to AGI-ers. But then there are v. few AGI-ers who have much sense of history or evolution. It's so much easier to engage in sci-fi fantasies about future, topdown AGI's. It's HARDER to think about where AGI starts - requires serious application to the problem. And frankly, until you or anyone else has a halfway viable of where AGI will or can start, and what uses it will serve, speculation about whether it's worth building complex, sci-fi AGI's is a waste of your valuable time. **PS Note BTW - a distinction that eludes most AGI-ers - a present computer program doing logic or maths or chess, is a fundamentally and massively different thing from a human or AGI doing the same, just as a current program doing NLP is totally different from a human using language. IN all these cases, humans (and real AGIs to come) don't merely manipulate meaningless patterns of numbers, they relate the symbols first to concepts and then to real world referents - massively complex operations totally beyond current computers. The whole history of AI/would-be AGI shows the terrible price of starting complex - with logic/maths/chess programs for example - and not having a clue about how intelligence has to be developed from v. simple origins, step by step, in order to actually understand these activities. From: Steve Richfield Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 4:52 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity Mike, Your reply flies in the face of two obvious facts: 1. I have little interest in what is called AGI here. My interests lie elsewhere, e.g. uploading, Dr. Eliza, etc. I posted this piece for several reasons, as it is directly applicable to Dr. Eliza, and because it casts a shadow on future dreams of AGI. I was hoping that those people who have thought things through regarding AGIs might have some thoughts here. Maybe these people don't (yet) exist?! 2. You seem to think that a walk before you run approach, basically a bottom-up approach to AGI, is the obvious one. It sure isn't obvious to me. Besides, if my statements of stupidity theory is true, then why even bother building AGIs, because we won't even be able to meaningfully discuss things with them. Steve == On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: sTEVE:I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given that there are zero but zero examples of AGI. Don't you think it would be a good idea to begin at the beginning? With initial AGI? Rather than advanced AGI? agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
I think that some quite important philosofical questions are raised by Steve's posting. I don't know BTW how you got it. I monitor all correspondence to the group, and I did not see it. The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of similarity with the human. Hence for a machine to be truly Turing it would have to make mistakes. Now any *useful* system will be made as intelligent as we can make it. The TT will be seen to be an irrelevancy. Philosophical question no 1 :- How useful is the TT. As I said in my correspondence With Jan Klouk, the human being is stupid, often dangerously stupid. Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with it. Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would give us political insights. These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. - Ian Parker On 6 August 2010 18:09, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: statements of stupidity - some of these are examples of cramming sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Language is both intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, I had no choice but to ... is a compressed summary of potentially vastly complex issues. The mind gets hung-up sometimes on this language of ours. Better off at times to think less using English language and express oneself with a wider spectrum communiqué. Doing a dance and throwing paint in the air for example, as some **primitive** cultures actually do, conveys information also and is medium of expression rather than using a restrictive human chat protocol. BTW the rules of etiquette of the human language protocol are even more potentially restricting though necessary for efficient and standardized data transfer to occur. Like, TCP/IP for example. The Etiquette in TCP/IP is like an OSI layer, akin to human language etiquette. John *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] To All, I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, heidenbugs, etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that hopefully others here can shed some light on. People often say things that indicate their limited mental capacity, or at least their inability to comprehend specific situations. 1) One of my favorites are people who say I had no choice but to ..., which of course indicates that they are clearly intellectually challenged because there are ALWAYS other choices, though it may be difficult to find one that is in all respects superior. While theoretically this statement could possibly be correct, in practice I have never found this to be the case. 2) Another one recently from this very forum was If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This may be theoretically true, but in fact was, as usual, made as a statement as to why the author was summarily dismissing an apparent opportunity of GREAT value. This dismissal of something BECAUSE of its great value would seem to severely limit the authors prospects for success in life, which probably explains why he spends so much time here challenging others who ARE doing something with their lives. 3) I used to evaluate inventions for some venture capitalists. Sometimes I would find that some basic law of physics, e.g. conservation of energy, would have to be violated for the thing to work. When I explained this to the inventors, their inevitable reply was Yea, and they also said that the Wright Brothers' plane would never fly. To this, I explained that the Wright Brothers had invested ~200 hours of effort working with their crude homemade wind tunnel, and ask what the inventors have done to prove that their own invention would work. 4) One old stupid standby, spoken when you have make a clear point that shows that their argument is full of holes That is just your opinion. No, it is a proven fact for you to accept or refute. 5) Perhaps you have your own pet statements of stupidity? I suspect that there may be enough of these to dismiss some significant fraction of prospective users of beyond-human-capability (I just hate the word intelligence) programs. In short, semantic analysis of these statements typically would NOT find them to be conspicuously false, and hence even an AGI would be tempted to accept them. However, their use almost universally indicates some short-circuit in thinking. The present Dr. Eliza program could easily recognize such statements. OK, so what? What should an AI program do when it encounters a stupid user? Should some attempt be made to explain
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I meant: Did Solomonoff's original idea use randomization to determine the bits of the programs that are used to produce the *prior probabilities*? I think that the answer to that is obviously no. The randomization of the next bit would used in the test of the prior probabilities as done using a random sampling. He probably found that students who had some familiarity with statistics would initially assume that the prior probability was based on some subset of possible programs as would be expected from a typical sample, so he gave this statistics type of definition to emphasize the extent of what he had in mind. I asked this question just to make sure that I understood what Solomonoff Induction was, because Abram had made some statement indicating that I really didn't know. Remember, this particular branch of the discussion was originally centered around the question of whether Solomonoff Induction would be convergent, even given a way around the incomputability of finding only those programs that halted. So while the random testing of the prior probabilities is of interest to me, I wanted to make sure that there is no evidence that Solomonoff Induction is convergent. I am not being petty about this, but I also needed to make sure that I understood what Solomonoff Induction is. I am interested in hearing your ideas about your variation of Solomonoff Induction because your convergent series, in this context, was interesting. Jim Bromer On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Jim: So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Abram: Yep. I meant, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit in the program's that are originally used to produce the *prior probabilities* involve the use of randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0? I have not been able to find any evidence that it was. I thought that my question was clear but on second thought I guess it wasn't. I think that the part about the coin flips was only a method to express that he was interested in the probability that a particular string would be produced from all possible programs, so that when actually testing the prior probability of a particular string the program that was to be run would have to be randomly generated. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, Your function may be convergent but it is not a probability. True! All the possibilities sum to less than 1. There are ways of addressing this (ie, multiply by a normalizing constant which must also be approximated in a convergent manner), but for the most part adherents of Solomonoff induction don't worry about this too much. What we care about, mostly, is comparing different hyotheses to decide which to favor. The normalizing constant doesn't help us here, so it usually isn't mentioned. You said that Solomonoff's original construction involved flipping a coin for the next bit. What good does that do? Your intuition is that running totally random programs to get predictions will just produce garbage, and that is fine. The idea of Solomonoff induction, though, is that it will produce systematically less garbage than just flipping coins to get predictions. Most of the garbage programs will be knocked out of the running by the data itself. This is supposed to be the least garbage we can manage without domain-specific knowledge This is backed up with the proof of dominance, which we haven't talked about yet, but which is really the key argument for the optimality of Solomonoff induction. And how does that prove that his original idea was convergent? The proofs of equivalence between all the different formulations of Solomonoff induction are something I haven't cared to look into too deeply. Since his idea is incomputable, there are no algorithms that can be run to demonstrate what he was talking about so the basic idea is papered with all sorts of unverifiable approximations. I gave you a proof of convergence for one such approximation, and if you wish I can modify it to include a normalizing constant to ensure that it is a probability measure. It would be helpful to me if your criticisms were more specific to that proof. So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Yep. Even ignoring the halting problem what kind of result would that give? Well, the general idea is this. An even distribution intuitively represents lack of knowledge. An even distribution over possible data fails horribly, however, predicting white noise. We want to represent the idea that we are very ignorant of what the data might be, but not *that* ignorant. To capture the idea of regularity, ie, similarity between past and future, we instead take an even distribution over *descriptions*
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
Interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727723.700-artificial-life-forms-evolve-basic-intelligence.html?page=1 On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.dewrote: Ian Parker wrote I would like your opinion on *proofs* which involve an unproven hypothesis, I've no elaborated opinion on that. --- 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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
John, Congratulations, as your response was the only one that was on topic!!! On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: statements of stupidity - some of these are examples of cramming sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Definitely, as even the thoughts of stupid people transcends our (present) ability to state what is happening behind their eyeballs. Most stupidity is probably beyond simple recognition. For the initial moment, I was just looking at the linguistic low hanging fruit. Language is both intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, I had no choice but to ... is a compressed summary of potentially vastly complex issues. My point is that they could have left the country, killed their adversaries, taken on a new ID, or done any number of radical things that they probably never considered, other than taking whatever action they chose to take. A more accurate statement might be I had no apparent rational choice but to The mind gets hung-up sometimes on this language of ours. Better off at times to think less using English language and express oneself with a wider spectrum communiqué. Doing a dance and throwing paint in the air for example, as some **primitive** cultures actually do, conveys information also and is medium of expression rather than using a restrictive human chat protocol. You are saying that the problem is that our present communication permits statements of stupidity, so we shouldn't have our present system of communication? Scrap English?!!! I consider statements of stupidity as a sort of communications checksum, to see if real interchange of ideas is even possible. Often, it is quite impossible to communicate new ideas to inflexible-minded people. BTW the rules of etiquette of the human language protocol are even more potentially restricting though necessary for efficient and standardized data transfer to occur. Like, TCP/IP for example. The Etiquette in TCP/IP is like an OSI layer, akin to human language etiquette. I'm not sure how this relates, other than possibly identifying people who don't honor linguistic etiquette as being (potentially) stupid. Was that your point? Steve == *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] To All, I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, heidenbugs, etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that hopefully others here can shed some light on. People often say things that indicate their limited mental capacity, or at least their inability to comprehend specific situations. 1) One of my favorites are people who say I had no choice but to ..., which of course indicates that they are clearly intellectually challenged because there are ALWAYS other choices, though it may be difficult to find one that is in all respects superior. While theoretically this statement could possibly be correct, in practice I have never found this to be the case. 2) Another one recently from this very forum was If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This may be theoretically true, but in fact was, as usual, made as a statement as to why the author was summarily dismissing an apparent opportunity of GREAT value. This dismissal of something BECAUSE of its great value would seem to severely limit the authors prospects for success in life, which probably explains why he spends so much time here challenging others who ARE doing something with their lives. 3) I used to evaluate inventions for some venture capitalists. Sometimes I would find that some basic law of physics, e.g. conservation of energy, would have to be violated for the thing to work. When I explained this to the inventors, their inevitable reply was Yea, and they also said that the Wright Brothers' plane would never fly. To this, I explained that the Wright Brothers had invested ~200 hours of effort working with their crude homemade wind tunnel, and ask what the inventors have done to prove that their own invention would work. 4) One old stupid standby, spoken when you have make a clear point that shows that their argument is full of holes That is just your opinion. No, it is a proven fact for you to accept or refute. 5) Perhaps you have your own pet statements of stupidity? I suspect that there may be enough of these to dismiss some significant fraction of prospective users of beyond-human-capability (I just hate the word intelligence) programs. In short, semantic analysis of these statements typically would NOT find them to be conspicuously false, and hence even an AGI would be tempted to accept them. However, their use almost universally indicates some short-circuit in thinking. The present Dr. Eliza program could easily recognize such statements. OK,
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim, see http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_probability I think this answers your questions. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 2:18:09 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction I meant: Did Solomonoff's original idea use randomization to determine the bits of the programs that are used to produce the prior probabilities? I think that the answer to that is obviously no. The randomization of the next bit would used in the test of the prior probabilities as done using a random sampling. He probably found that students who had some familiarity with statistics would initially assume that the prior probability was based on some subset of possible programs as would be expected from a typical sample, so he gave this statistics type of definition to emphasize the extent of what he had in mind. I asked this question just to make sure that I understood what Solomonoff Induction was, because Abram had made some statement indicating that I really didn't know. Remember, this particular branch of the discussion was originally centered around the question of whether Solomonoff Induction would be convergent, even given a way around the incomputability of finding only those programs that halted. So while the random testing of the prior probabilities is of interest to me, I wanted to make sure that there is no evidence that Solomonoff Induction is convergent. I am not being petty about this, but I also needed to make sure that I understood what Solomonoff Induction is. I am interested in hearing your ideas about your variation of Solomonoff Induction because your convergent series, in this context, was interesting. Jim Bromer On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Jim: So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Abram: Yep. I meant, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit in the program's that are originally used to produce the prior probabilities involve the use of randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0? I have not been able to find any evidence that it was. I thought that my question was clear but on second thought I guess it wasn't. I think that the part about the coin flips was only a method to express that he was interested in the probability that a particular string would be produced from all possible programs, so that when actually testing the prior probability of a particular string the program that was to be run would have to be randomly generated. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, Your function may be convergent but it is not a probability. True! All the possibilities sum to less than 1. There are ways of addressing this (ie, multiply by a normalizing constant which must also be approximated in a convergent manner), but for the most part adherents of Solomonoff induction don't worry about this too much. What we care about, mostly, is comparing different hyotheses to decide which to favor. The normalizing constant doesn't help us here, so it usually isn't mentioned. You said that Solomonoff's original construction involved flipping a coin for the next bit. What good does that do? Your intuition is that running totally random programs to get predictions will just produce garbage, and that is fine. The idea of Solomonoff induction, though, is that it will produce systematically less garbage than just flipping coins to get predictions. Most of the garbage programs will be knocked out of the running by the data itself. This is supposed to be the least garbage we can manage without domain-specific knowledge This is backed up with the proof of dominance, which we haven't talked about yet, but which is really the key argument for the optimality of Solomonoff induction. And how does that prove that his original idea was convergent? The proofs of equivalence between all the different formulations of Solomonoff induction are something I haven't cared to look into too deeply. Since his idea is incomputable, there are no algorithms that can be run to demonstrate what he was talking about so the basic idea is papered with all sorts of unverifiable approximations. I gave you a proof of convergence for one such approximation, and if you wish I can modify it to include a normalizing constant to ensure that it is a probability measure. It would be helpful to me if your criticisms were more specific to that proof. So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Yep. Even ignoring the halting problem what kind of result would that give? Well, the general idea is this. An even
Re: [agi] AGI Alife
This is much more interesting in the context of Evolution than it is for the creation of AGI. Point is that all the things that have ben done would have been done (much more simply in fact) from straightforward narrow programs. However it demonstrates the early multicelluar organisms of the Pre Cambrian and early Cambrian. What AGI is interested in is how *language* evolves. That is to say the last 6 million years or so. We also need a process for creating AGI which is rather more efficient than Evolution. We can't wait that time for something to happen. - Ian Parker On 6 August 2010 19:23, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727723.700-artificial-life-forms-evolve-basic-intelligence.html?page=1 On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.dewrote: Ian Parker wrote I would like your opinion on *proofs* which involve an unproven hypothesis, I've no elaborated opinion on that. --- 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 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
This is on the surface interesting. But I'm kinda dubious about it. I'd like to know exactly what's going on - who or what (what kind of organism) is solving what kind of problem about what? The exact nature of the problem and the solution, not just a general blurb description. If you follow the link from Kurzweil, you get a really confusing picture/screen. And I wonder whether the real action/problemsolving isn't largely taking place in the viewer/programmer's mind. From: rob levy Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 7:23 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Alife Interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727723.700-artificial-life-forms-evolve-basic-intelligence.html?page=1 On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Jan Klauck jkla...@uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: Ian Parker wrote I would like your opinion on *proofs* which involve an unproven hypothesis, I've no elaborated opinion on that. --- 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] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim, From the article Matt linked to, specifically see the line: As [image: p] is itself a binary string, we can define the discrete universal a priori probability, [image: m(x)], to be the probability that the output of a universal prefix Turing machine [image: U] is [image: x]when provided with fair coin flips on the input tape. --Abram On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Jim, see http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_probability http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_probabilityI think this answers your questions. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Fri, August 6, 2010 2:18:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction I meant: Did Solomonoff's original idea use randomization to determine the bits of the programs that are used to produce the *prior probabilities*? I think that the answer to that is obviously no. The randomization of the next bit would used in the test of the prior probabilities as done using a random sampling. He probably found that students who had some familiarity with statistics would initially assume that the prior probability was based on some subset of possible programs as would be expected from a typical sample, so he gave this statistics type of definition to emphasize the extent of what he had in mind. I asked this question just to make sure that I understood what Solomonoff Induction was, because Abram had made some statement indicating that I really didn't know. Remember, this particular branch of the discussion was originally centered around the question of whether Solomonoff Induction would be convergent, even given a way around the incomputability of finding only those programs that halted. So while the random testing of the prior probabilities is of interest to me, I wanted to make sure that there is no evidence that Solomonoff Induction is convergent. I am not being petty about this, but I also needed to make sure that I understood what Solomonoff Induction is. I am interested in hearing your ideas about your variation of Solomonoff Induction because your convergent series, in this context, was interesting. Jim Bromer On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Jim: So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Abram: Yep. I meant, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit in the program's that are originally used to produce the *prior probabilities* involve the use of randomizing whether the next bit would be a 1 or a 0? I have not been able to find any evidence that it was. I thought that my question was clear but on second thought I guess it wasn't. I think that the part about the coin flips was only a method to express that he was interested in the probability that a particular string would be produced from all possible programs, so that when actually testing the prior probability of a particular string the program that was to be run would have to be randomly generated. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, Your function may be convergent but it is not a probability. True! All the possibilities sum to less than 1. There are ways of addressing this (ie, multiply by a normalizing constant which must also be approximated in a convergent manner), but for the most part adherents of Solomonoff induction don't worry about this too much. What we care about, mostly, is comparing different hyotheses to decide which to favor. The normalizing constant doesn't help us here, so it usually isn't mentioned. You said that Solomonoff's original construction involved flipping a coin for the next bit. What good does that do? Your intuition is that running totally random programs to get predictions will just produce garbage, and that is fine. The idea of Solomonoff induction, though, is that it will produce systematically less garbage than just flipping coins to get predictions. Most of the garbage programs will be knocked out of the running by the data itself. This is supposed to be the least garbage we can manage without domain-specific knowledge This is backed up with the proof of dominance, which we haven't talked about yet, but which is really the key argument for the optimality of Solomonoff induction. And how does that prove that his original idea was convergent? The proofs of equivalence between all the different formulations of Solomonoff induction are something I haven't cared to look into too deeply. Since his idea is incomputable, there are no algorithms that can be run to demonstrate what he was talking about so the basic idea is papered with all sorts of unverifiable approximations. I gave you
Re: [agi] Computer Vision not as hard as I thought!
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: *So, why computer vision? Why can't we just enter knowledge manually? *a) The knowledge we require for AI to do what we want is vast and complex and we can prove that it is completely ineffective to enter the knowledge we need manually. b) Computer vision is the most effective means of gathering facts about the world. Knowledge and experience can be gained from analysis of these facts. c) Language is not learned through passive observation. The associations that words have to the environment and our common sense knowledge of the environment/world are absolutely essential to language learning, understanding and disambiguation. When visual information is available, children use visual cues from their parents and from the objects they are interacting with to figure out word-environment associations. If visual info is not available, touch is essential to replace the visual cues. Touch can provide much of the same info as vision, but it is not as effective because not everything is in reach and it provides less information than vision. There is some very good documentation out there on how children learn language that supports this. One example is How Children Learn Language by William O'grady. d) The real world cannot be predicted blindly. It is absolutely essential to be able to directly observe it and receive feedback. e) Manual entry of knowledge, even if possible, would be extremely slow and would be a very serious bottleneck(it already is). This is a major reason we want AI... to increase our man power and remove man-power related bottlenecks. Discovering a way to get a computer program to interpret a human language is a difficult problem. The feeling that an AI program might be able to attain a higher level of intelligence if only it could examine data from a variety of different kinds of sensory input modalities it is not new. It has been tried and tried during the past 35 years. But there is no experimental data (that I have heard of) that suggests that this method is the only way anyone will achieve intelligence. I have tried to explain that I believe the problem is twofold. First of all, there have been quite a few AI programs that worked real well as long as the problem was simple enough. This suggests that the complexity of what is trying to be understood is a critical factor. This in turn suggests that using different input modalities, would not -in itself- make AI possible. Secondly, there is a problem of getting the computer to accurately model that which it can know in such a way that it could be effectively utilized for higher degrees of complexity. I consider this to be a conceptual integration problem. We do not know how to integrate different kinds of ideas (or idea-like knowledge) in an effective manner, and as a result we have not seen the gradual advancement in AI programming that we would expect to see given all the advances in computer technology that have been occurring. Both visual analysis and linguistic analysis are significant challenges in AI programming. The idea that combining both of them would make the problem 1/2 as hard may not be any crazier than saying that it would make the problem 2 times as hard, but without experimental evidence it isn't any saner either. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: :D Thanks Jim for paying attention! One very cool thing about the human brain is that we use multiple feedback mechanisms to correct for such problems as observer movement. For example, the inner ear senses your bodies movement and provides feedback for visual processing. This is why we get nauseous when the ear disagrees with the eyes and other senses. As you said, eye muscles also provide feedback about how the eye itself has moved. In example papers I have read, such as Object Discovery through Motion, Appearance and Shape, the researchers know the position of the camera (I'm not sure how) and use that to determine which moving features are closest to the cameras movement, and therefore are not actually moving. Once you know how much the camera moved, you can try to subtract this from apparent motion. You're right that I should attempt to implement the system. I think I will in fact, but it is difficult because I have limited time and resources. My main goal is to make sure it is accomplished, even if not by me. So, sometimes I think that it is better to prove that it can be done than to actually spend a much longer amount of time to actually do it myself. I am struggling to figure out how I can gather the resources or support to accomplish the monstrous task. I think that I should work on the theoretical basis in addition to the actual implementation. This is likely important to make sure that my design is well grounded and reflects reality. It
Re: [agi] Computer Vision not as hard as I thought!
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: *So, why computer vision? Why can't we just enter knowledge manually? * a) The knowledge we require for AI to do what we want is vast and complex and we can prove that it is completely ineffective to enter the knowledge we need manually. b) Computer vision is the most effective means of gathering facts about the world. Knowledge and experience can be gained from analysis of these facts. c) Language is not learned through passive observation. The associations that words have to the environment and our common sense knowledge of the environment/world are absolutely essential to language learning, understanding and disambiguation. When visual information is available, children use visual cues from their parents and from the objects they are interacting with to figure out word-environment associations. If visual info is not available, touch is essential to replace the visual cues. Touch can provide much of the same info as vision, but it is not as effective because not everything is in reach and it provides less information than vision. There is some very good documentation out there on how children learn language that supports this. One example is How Children Learn Language by William O'grady. d) The real world cannot be predicted blindly. It is absolutely essential to be able to directly observe it and receive feedback. e) Manual entry of knowledge, even if possible, would be extremely slow and would be a very serious bottleneck(it already is). This is a major reason we want AI... to increase our man power and remove man-power related bottlenecks. Discovering a way to get a computer program to interpret a human language is a difficult problem. The feeling that an AI program might be able to attain a higher level of intelligence if only it could examine data from a variety of different kinds of sensory input modalities it is not new. It has been tried and tried during the past 35 years. But there is no experimental data (that I have heard of) that suggests that this method is the only way anyone will achieve intelligence. if only it could examine data from a variety of different kinds of sensory input modalities That statement suggests that such different kinds of input have no meaningful relationship to the problem at hand. I'm not talking about different kinds of input. I'm talking about explicitly and deliberately extracting facts about the environment from sensory perception, specifically remote perception or visual perception. The input modalities are not what is important. It is the facts that you can extract from computer vision that are useful in understanding what is out there in the world, what relationships and associations exist, and how is language associated with the environment. It is well documented that children learn language by interacting with adults around them and using cues from them to learn how the words they speak are associated with what is going on. It is not hard to support the claim that extensive knowledge about the world is important for understanding and interpreting human language. Nor is it hard to support the idea that such knowledge can be gained from computer vision. I have tried to explain that I believe the problem is twofold. First of all, there have been quite a few AI programs that worked real well as long as the problem was simple enough. This suggests that the complexity of what is trying to be understood is a critical factor. This in turn suggests that using different input modalities, would not -in itself- make AI possible. Your conclusion isn't supported by your arguments. I'm not even saying it makes AI possible. I'm saying that a system can make reasonable inferences and come to reasonable conclusions with sufficient knowledge. Without sufficient knowledge, there is reason to believe that it is significantly harder and often impossible to come to correct conclusions. Therefore, gaining knowledge about how things are related is not just helpful in making correct inferences, it is required. So, different input modalities which can give you facts about the world, which in turn would give you knowledge about the world, do make correct reasoning possible, when it otherwise would not be possible. You see, it has nothing to do with the source of the info or whether it is more info or not. It has everything to do with the relationships that information have. Just calling them different input modalities is not correct. Secondly, there is a problem of getting the computer to accurately model that which it can know in such a way that it could be effectively utilized for higher degrees of complexity. This is an engineering problem, not necessarily a problem that can't be solved. When we get
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other 2) Learning about the world won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning? 3) Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes it general! Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. Interesting philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers' fantasies of take-off. You can compare it to the idea that all science can be reduced to physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But it's demonstrably not so. You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the NEW - the unfamiliar, that wh. cannot be broken down into familiar categories, - and then find ways of dealing with it ad hoc. You have to demonstrate a capacity for dealing with the new. (As opposed to, say, narrow AI squares). From: David Jones Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:44 PM To: agi Subject: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave 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] How To Create General AI Draft2
David, Seems like a reasonable argument to me. I agree with the emphasis on acquiring knowledge. I agree that tackling language first is not the easiest path. I agree with the comments on compositionality of knowledge the regularity of the vast majority of the environment. Vision seems like a fine domain choice. However, there are other domain choices. I think your goal of generality would be well-served by keeping in mind some of these other domains at the same time as vision, so that your algorithms have some cross-domain applicability. The same algorithm that can find patterns in the visual field should also be able to find patterns in a database of medical information, say. That is my way of thinking, at least. (Without this sort of generality, your approach seems restricted to gathering knowledge about whatever events unfold in front of a limited quantity of high-quality camera systems which you set up. To be honest, the usefulness of that sort of knowledge is not obvious.) --Abram On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *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] How To Create General AI Draft2
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: (Without this sort of generality, your approach seems restricted to gathering knowledge about whatever events unfold in front of a limited quantity of high-quality camera systems which you set up. To be honest, the usefulness of that sort of knowledge is not obvious.) On second thought, this statement was a bit naive. You obviously intend the camera systems to be connected to robots or other systems which perform actual tasks in the world, providing a great variety of information including feedback from success/failure of actions to achieve results. What is unrealistic to me is not that this information could be useful, but that this level of real-world intelligence could be achieved with the super-high confidence bounds you are imagining. What I think is that probabilistic reasoning is needed. Once we have the object/location/texture information with those confidence bounds (which I do see as possible), gaining the sort of knowledge Cyc set out to contain seems inherently statistical. --Abram On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *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 -- 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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
-Original Message- From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of similarity with the human. Hence for a machine to be truly Turing it would have to make mistakes. Now any useful system will be made as intelligent as we can make it. The TT will be seen to be an irrelevancy. Philosophical question no 1 :- How useful is the TT. TT in its basic form is rather simplistic. It's thought of usually in its ideal form, the determination of an AI or a human. I look at it more of analogue verses discrete boolean. Much of what is out there is human with computer augmentation and echoes of human interaction. It's blurry in reality and the TT has been passed in some ways but not in its most ideal way. As I said in my correspondence With Jan Klouk, the human being is stupid, often dangerously stupid. Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with it. Humans without augmentation are only so intelligent. A Turing machine would be potentially dangerous, a really well built one. At some point we'd need to see some DNA as ID of another extended TT. Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would give us political insights. You can have a relatively stupid TM or a sophisticated one just like humans. It might be easier to pass the TT by not exposing too much intelligence. John These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. - 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
