Re: [agi]
So Ben, based on what you are saying, you fully expect them to fail their Turing test? Eric B. Ramsay Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know Selmer and his group pretty well... It is well done stuff, but it is purely hard-coded-knowledge-based logical inference -- there is no real learning there... It's not so hard to get impressive-looking functionality in toy demo tasks, by hard- coding rules and using a decent logic engine Others have failed at this, so his achievement is worthwhile and means his logic engine and formalism are better than most ... but still ... IMO, this is not a very likely path to AGI ... -- Ben On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Ed Porter wrote: Here is an article about RPI's attempt to pass a slightly modified version of the turning test using supercomputers to power their Rascals AI algorithm. http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206903246pri ntable=true The one thing I didn't understand was that they said their Rascals AI algorithm used a theorem proving architectures. I would assume that that would mean it as based on binary logic, and thus would not be sufficiently flexible to model many human thought processes, which are almost certainly more neural net-like, and thus much more probabilistic. Does anybody have any opinions on that. Ed Porter --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Causality challenge
Are any of the AI folks here competing in this challenge? http://www.causality.inf.ethz.ch/challenge.php Eric B. Ramsay --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence
Several emails ago, both Ben and Richard said they were no longer going to continue this argument, yet here they are - still arguing. Will the definition of intelligence be able to accomodate this behavior by these gentlemen? Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - When you try to cash out that compression function, I claim, you will end up in a situation where the system's real world behavior depends on exactly which 'patterns' it chooses to go hunting for, and how it deploys them. The devil is in the details that you do not specify here, so any decision about whether this formalism really is coextensive with commonsense intelligence is pure speculation. I don't really understand your response... What I said, in less formal terms, is: 1) intelligence is defined as the ability to optimize complex functions 2) complexity of a function is defined as having lots of patterns in its graph 3) to make 2 operational, you need to specify it as having lots of patterns in its graph, according to pattern-recognizer S Which step does your response pertain to? The patterns hunted by the system whose intelligence is being defined (in 1), or the patterns hunted by the system S assessing the intelligence (in 3) ?? Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
RE: [agi] How should an AGI ponder about mathematics
The more problematic issue is what happens if you non-destructively up-load your mind? What do you do with the original which still considers itself you? The up-load also considers itself you and may suggest a bullet. Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- John G. Rose wrote: A baby AGI has immense advantage. It's starting (life?) after billions of years of evolution and thousands of years of civilization. A 5 YO child can't float all languages, all science, all mathematics, all recorded history, all encyclopedia, etc. in sub-millisecond RAM and be able to interconnect to almost any type of electronics. There are a lot of comparisons of a 5YO with an AGI but I wonder about those... are we just anthropomorphisizing AGI by coming up with a tabula rasa feel good AGI that needs to learn like a cute human baby? Our brains are good I mean they are us but aren't they just biological blobs of goop that are half-assed excuses for intelligence? I mean why are AGI's coming about anyway? Is it because our brains are awesome and fulfill all of our needs? No. We need to be uploaded otherwise we die. I thought the reason for building an AGI was so we would have a utopian society where machines do all the work. Uploading raises troubling questions. How far can the copied mind stray from the original before you die? How do you distinguish between consciousness (sense of self) and the programmed belief in consciousness, free will, and fear of death that all animals possess because it confers a survival advantage? What happens if you reprogram your uploaded mind not to have these beliefs? Would it then be OK to turn it off? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] How should an AGI ponder about mathematics
Your twin example is not a good choice. The upload will consider itself to have a claim on the contents of your life - financial resources for example. Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:09:22AM -0700, Eric B. Ramsay wrote: The more problematic issue is what happens if you non-destructively up-load your mind? What do you do with the original which still It's a theoretical problem for any of us on this list. Nondestructive scans require medical nanotechnology. considers itself you? The up-load also considers itself you and may suggest a bullet. How is that different from identical twins? I hope you're not suggesting suicide to your twin brother. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [tt] [agi] Definition of 'Singularity' and 'Mind'
Actually Richard, these are the things you imagine you would like to do given your current level of intelligence. I suspect very much that the moment you went super intelligent there would be a paradigm change in what you consider fun. Eric Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 03:54:50AM -0400, Randall wrote: I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone who had seen the elephant would choose to go back to being Mundane. The question is also whether they could, if they wanted to. A neanderthal wouldn't function well in today's society, and anything lesser would run a good chance of becoming roadkill. If I could flip a switch and increase my _g_ by two orders of magnitude, I'd never flip that switch back. Why would anybody? I wouldn't. But I wouldn't max out the knob immediately, either. I would just go for a slow, sustainable growth, at least as long nobody else is rushing ahead. [META COMMENT. Is it my imagination, or have some funny things have been happening to the AGI and/or Singularity lists recently... e.g. delivery of messages as if they were offlist?] I think you are looking at the possibilities through far to narrow a prism. Consider. Would it be interesting to find what it is like to be, say, a tiger? A whale? A dolphin? I can think of ways to temporarily get transferred into the form of any reasonably high-level animal, then come back again to human later, with at least some memories of what it was like to have been in that state. In a future in which all these things are possible, why would people not be interested in having this kind of fun? Now imagine the possibility of becoming superintelligent. That could get kind of heavy after a while. I do not necessarily think that I want to know about all of the science in human history, for example, to such a deep extent that it would be as if I had been teaching it for centuries, and was bored with every last bit of it. Would you? I would want to have fun. And the big part of having fun would be finding out new stuff. So, yes, I would want to become superintelligent occasionally, but it seems to me that the more intelligent I become, the more I know about complex problems I cannot fix, and the more that frustrates me. That's not fun after a while. Sometimes it would be nice to go back to just being a kid for a while. Then there is the possibility of recreating historical situations. I would like to be able to be one of the people who was around when none of modern science existed, just so I could try to discover that stuff when it was new. To do that I would have to reduce my current knowledge by putting it on ice for a while. And on and on I can think of vast numbers of reasons not to do the boring thing of just trying to get into a high-intelligence brain. It's not the destination, folks, its the journey. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
[agi] Low I.Q. AGI
There is an easy assumption of most writers on this board that once the AGI exists, it's route to becoming a singularity is a sure thing. Why is that? In humans there is a wide range of smartness in the population. People face intellectual thresholds that they cannot cross because they just do not have enough of this smartness thing. Although as a physicist I understand General Relativity, I really doubt that if it had been left up to me that it would ever have been discovered - no matter how much time I was given. Do neuroscientists know where this talent difference comes from in terms of brain structure? Where in the designs for other AGI (Ben's for example) is the smartness of the AGI designed in? I can see how an awareness may bubble up from a design but this diesn't mean a system smart enough to move itself towards being a singularity. Even if you feed the system all the information in the world, it would know a lot but not be any smarter or even know how to make itself smarter. How many years of training will we give a brand new AGI before we decide it's retarded? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] A Course on Foundations of Theoretical Psychology...
I would certainly be interested. Ask Ben if you can use the Novamente pavilion in Second Life and conduct the worksop there (or maybe the IBM pavilion which is actually better set up). More people could attend this way and keep costs down. Eric B. Ramsay Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder... How many people on this list would actually go to the trouble, if they could, of signing up for a truly comprehensive course in the foundations of AI/CogPsy/Neuroscience, which would give them a grounding in all of these fields and put them in a position where they had a unified picture of what kind of skills would be needed to build an AGI. I am sure the people who already have established careers would not be interested, but what of the people who are burning with passion to get some real progress to happen in the AGI, and don't know where to put their energies. What if I organised a summer school to do such a thing? This is just my spontaneous first thought about the idea. If there was enough initial interest, I would be happy to scope it out more thoroughly. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
