Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
John, an impressive effort and wonderful direction, an analytical psychology of the Good in humans is sorely lacking and the focus on human sickness has had a monopoly for way too long and with untold negative consequences for society at large. assuming these meanings are correct (or will be fine tuned to be so at some point), cannot your coding include classes that would prohibit improper uses of such terms, kind of a system of rejecting attempts to mix value judgments and labels? On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:29 AM, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike The abstract nouns Honor. Justice. Truth can all be shown to be objectively based in science of Behaviorism http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html as outlined in technically linked schematics http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html and even granted US patent 6587846 www.ethicalvalues.com Just offering up the latest advances... Wittgenstein would be proud ^_^ Cordially John LaMuth www.charactervalues.org * GUILT * Previously, you (as reinforcer) have leniently acted in a reinforcing fashion towards me: overriding my (as procurer) submissive treatment of you. But now, I (as personal authority) will *guiltily* act in a submissive fashion towards you: overruling your lenient treatment of me. * BLAME * Previously, I (as personal authority) have guiltily acted in a submissive fashion towards you: overriding your (as reinforcer) lenient treatment of me. But now, you (as my personal fol-lower) will *blamefully* act in a lenient fashion towards me: overruling my (as PA) guilty treatment of you. * HONOR * Previously, you (as my personal follower) have blamefully acted in a lenient fashion towards me: overriding my (as PA) guilty treatment of you. But now, I (as group authority) will *honorably* act in a guilty fashion towards you: overruling your (as PF) blameful treatment of me. * JUSTICE * Previously, I (as group authority) have honorably acted in a guilty fashion towards you: overriding your (as PF) blameful treatment of me. But now, you (as group representative) will *justly*-blame me: overruling my (as GA) honorable sense of guilt. * LIBERTY * Previously, you (as group representative) have justly-blamed me: overriding my (as GA) honorable sense of guilt. * * But now, I (as spiritual authority) will honorably act in a *libertarian *fashion towards you: overruling your just-blaming of me. * HOPE * Previously, I (as spiritual authority) have honorably acted in a libertarian fashion towards you: overriding your (as GR) just-blaming of me. But now, you (as my spiritual disciple) will blamefully-*hope* for justice: overruling my (as SA) libertarian sense of honor. * FREE WILL * Previously, you (as my spiritual disciple) have blamefully-hoped for justice: overriding my (as SA) libertarian sense of honor. But now, I (as humanitarian authority) will honorably act in a *freely willed* fashion towards you: overruling your (as SD) blameful-hope for justice. * TRUTH * Previously, I (as humanitarian authority) have honorably acted in a freely-willed fashion towards you: overriding your (as SD) blameful hope for justice. But now, you (as representative member of humanity) will justly-hope for the *truth*: overruling my (as HA) libertarian sense of free will. * EQUALITY * Previously, you (as representative member of humanity) have justly-hoped for the truth: overriding my (as HA) libertarian sense of free will. But now, I (as transcendental authority) will freely-willed act in an* ** egalitarian* fashion towards you: overruling your (as RH) just-hope for the truth. * BLISS * Previously, I (as transcendental authority) have freely-willed acted in an egalitarian fashion towards you: overriding your (as RH) just-hope for the truth. But now, you (as my transcendental follower) will *blissfully* hope for the truth: overruling my (as TA) egalitarian treatment of you. . - Original Message - *From:* Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:39 AM *Subject:* Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense Tudor: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, Er, it's a rather big job. I think you're talking about all abstract nouns. Time. Space. Honour. Justice. Truth. Realism Beauty. Science. Art. You're talking IOW about a dimension of language almost as fundamental as adverbs. It's worth pursuing the illusions created by the verbal abstractions of language and the ways we use them - but it's a huge task. -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
[agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members t --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
wrong category is trivial indeed, but quickly removing computing resources from impossible processes can be a great benefit to any system, and an incredible benefit if the system learns to spot deeply nonsensical problems in advance of dedicating almost any resources to it... what if we could design a system that by its very structuring couldnt even generate these wittgensteinian deep errors... also, as far it being a cop out, i disagree it clears the mind to the deepest levels allowing a springwell of clarity that shows other answers in record time and accuracy, an example: minsky points to the same stupidity of asking the question of what is consciousness, preferring to just look for stimuli/behavior rules that are required to survive and act, and letting others worry about how many of those rules make up their version of the word conscious... On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Tudor Boloni wrote: we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members Read it. Along with pretty much everything else he wrote (that is in print, anyhow). Calling things a category error is a bit of a cop out. Richard Loosemore --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, and the post showed some real time wasters from various fields that i found valuable to be aware of It implies it is pointless to ask what the essence of time is, but then proceeds to give an explanation of time that is not pointless, and may shed light on its meaning, which is perhaps as much of an essence as time has.. i think the post tries to show that the error is that treating time like an object of reality with an essence is nonsensical and a waste of time;) it seems wonderful to have an AGI system answer such a question with time is a human label of arbitrary length based on conventions among human subgroups what more needs to be said of time than that it is a label, allowing the word essence creates a very hard and confusing and pointless internal 'debate' in an AGI, essence means a further compression of data or synopsis of concept or a deeper fundamental level of truth not its meaning... so i would be happier hearing time has no essence, time is defined as: Similarly, it implies it is pointless to ask what is the nature of consciousness, and then gives an explanation, that while not necessarily correct, or even close to complete, has some meaning about the nature of what we call consciousness. same as above... having researchers looking around for something that doesnt exist is a time waster. having word handles to easily move abstract concepts about is a productivity enhancer IF and ONLY if communicants share word definitions. since consciousness the word needs to be defined as how many simple behaviors are we going to require before we agree to call something conscious, this defining stage is critical before any use of the word, so if an AGI is asked the question 'what is consciousness' if would have to respond that its defined differently by all askers, so it has no nature, its just a variable that needs to be defined before its use in a conversation i guess the key here is that there is an important division between legitimate language and nonsense, and i never see us try to protect our systems from being burdened by the nonsense --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Richard, please give me a link to the paper or at least the example related to manipulation of subjective experience in others, i am indeed curious to see how their approach would fare... thanks for the effort in advance tudor For example, they could not, in principle, answer any questions about the practical effects of the various manipulations that I proposed in my recent paper. And yet, it turns out that I can make predictions about how the subjective experience of people would be affected by these manipulations: pretty good work for something that is labelled by W M as a non-concept! Richard On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tudor Boloni wrote: we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members Read it. Along with pretty much everything else he wrote (that is in print, anyhow). Calling things a category error is a bit of a cop out. Richard Loosemore --- 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/?; 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/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [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/?; 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
your list is a start to a list of only potentially problematic questions or constructs, since using these words and concepts is actually going to be required in any AGI system... a flag list is a start, but a set of rules to eliminate areas of language construction we do not need to ever worry about in designing AGI would be the artful goal On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Tudor: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, Er, it's a rather big job. I think you're talking about all abstract nouns. Time. Space. Honour. Justice. Truth. Realism Beauty. Science. Art. You're talking IOW about a dimension of language almost as fundamental as adverbs. It's worth pursuing the illusions created by the verbal abstractions of language and the ways we use them - but it's a huge task. -- *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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Compression PLUS a fitness function motoring for hypothesized compressibility is intelligence?
Jim, these are good points, and seem to be saying that: even with the perfect metric for intelligence discovered (lets pretend), and a maximally intelligent program built (keep pretending), that without a value system in place that selects among future possible actions or internal tests/experiments to perform and whose outcomes are JUDGED as favorable or less so, we dont have an AGI of human proportions. or are you saying permutations and compression alone would result in a huge database optimally organized but not even intelligent... what if any question asked of this program returns all possible answers (including the Japanese MU (rephrase the question since it assumes untrue concepts)) and the user, based on his own value system ACTS according to his answers of choice... this to me seems even more useful than some bigoted program that really acts like one of us... maybe we should define what AGI goals we are actually working for tudor On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The attempt to create an objective measure or process for intelligence seems worthwhile, but the problem here is that in making the attempt to eliminate actions and beliefs from the modeling of intelligence one is in danger of repeating the serious error of over-simplification as was done, for example, when the behaviorists tried to eliminate ideas and reasoning from the study of psychology, or when the proponents of the theories of logic-based artificial intelligence tried to eliminate other methods of reasoning from the scientific retinue on the basis that logic was the only truly scientific form of reasoning available. The use of a metaphor from the history science is legitimate. However when the metaphor purports to make an overly broad conclusion, especially one that is narrowly focused on a system (mathematical celestial orbital physics) which has yet to show its efficacy in the field of general artificial intelligence, and which the exclusion of other methods of reasoning is presented as if it had emerged from some kind of triumph, you really have to think before you jump. I often argue against things like the simplistic use of Bayesian reasoning. However, when I do make an argument like that, I am not arguing against the value of Bayesian reasoning, but against the narrow simplistic belief that Bayesian reasoning is itself sufficient to explain human level general intelligence. Similarly, I am not against the attempts to create objectives measures and processes for intelligence, but I am definitely opposed to those arguments which make an unsubstantiated claim that a narrow simplistic objective method is going to be sufficient when the evidence supporting that conclusion is seriously lacking and there are numerous good reasons for including other means of reasoning in the design of an AI program. Jim Bromer - Original Message From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:12:54 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Compression PLUS a fitness function motoring for hypothesized compressibility is intelligence? I don't really have any argument with this, except possibly quibbles about the nuances of the difference between empirical and empiricism -- and I don't really care about those! On Friday 30 May 2008 05:04:58 am, Tudor Boloni wrote: The key point was lost, here is a clearer way of saying it. Kepler's experience (his empirical work and experimentation with all his equipment) IS NOT what helped him DISCOVER properties of gravity (equal times for equal areas) (we can agree no one Invented it, though Newton generalized Kepler's insights). He had an INSIGHT separate from his possible SENSORY past or SENSORY future. In the words of Einstein in a speech on Kepler given on Kepler's 300th anniversary of his death: One can never see where a planet really is at any given moment, but only in what direction it can be seen just then from the Earth, which is itself moving in an unknown manner around the Sun. The difficulties thus seemed practically unsurmountable [by empirical means]. Kepler had to discover a way of bringing order into this chaos. The breakthrough was Kepler's Universal Mathematical Physics as he defined it, and NOT physical empirical cosmology (which he specifically REJECTS in his attack on Aristotle's SENSORY based beliefs). So what created this peak of human INSIGHT if compression of experienced patterns was not enough? He did trade one theory for another but we call that thinking, and he didn't use empiricism to do it, he hypothesized new patterns and compressed them until they could not be disproved empirically... (this is a major difference from how modern science in executed, where most researchers actually give way, way too much worth to new theories arising from their experimental results, instead of simply removing theories
Re: [agi] Simplistic Paradigms Are Not Substitutes For Insight Into Conceptual Complexity
Jim, We will eventually stumble upon this conceptual complexity, namely a few algorithms that exceed the results that human intelligence uses (the algorithms created through slow evolution and relatively fast learning). we would have a smarter machine that exhibits advanced intelligence in many ways... maybe capable of self learning to ever higher levels and then nothing else if needed, except that: today, we dont know how to extract sufficient patterns yet from natural language without additional training/trainers because languages reflect the unique histories of the respective races. Your conceptual complexity laden program full of insights would need to be trained in these cases anyway, no matter how insightful it became (think Wolfram's Computational Equivalence theory, where some things are really not pattern matching but must be simulated to the last detail to be fully understood due to their complex nature). So why start out with something that goes back to training issues anyway and is not even available today. Alternatively, semantic webs from expert systems will become more available every year, the permutations of the objects contained therein will not be exhaustive searches of the truly unrealistic search space that would result, but are more like Deep Blue's solutions using trade offs of time and quality of knowledge. Many permutations would never even be attempted because objects are in different classes and context rules determine areas with a high potential for valuable insights that would be favored. The constant self organization of the program and its database according to the rules of maximal lossless compression would insure that a given set of computational resources becomes intelligent over time. Letting such a system read CYC type databases will further reduce the search space of interest. The benefit is this can be done sooner with the knowledge we have today. t On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose that an advocate of behaviorism and reinforcement was able to make a successful general AI program that was clearly far in advance of any other effort. At first I might argue that his advocacy of behaviorism and reinforcement was only an eccentricity, that his program must be coded with some greater complexity than simple reinforcement to produce true learning. Now imagine that everyone got to examine his code, and after studying it I discovered that it was amazingly simple in concept. For example, suppose the programmer only used 32 methods to combine or integrate referenced data objects and these 32 methods were used randomly in the program to combine behaviors that were to be reinforced by training. At first, I might argue that the 32 simple internal methods of combining data or references wasn't truly behaviorist because behaviorism was only concerned with the observable gross behavior of an animal. My criticism would be somewhat valid, but it would quickly be seen as petty quibbling and non-instructive because, in this imagined scenario, the efficacy of the program is so powerful, and the use of 32 simple integration methods along with a reinforcement of observable 'behaviors' so simple, that my criticism against the programmer's explanation of the paradigm would be superficial. I might claim that it would be more objective to drop the term behaviorist in favor of the use of some more objective explanation using familiar computational terms, but even this would be a minor sub-issue compared to the implications of the success of the paradigm. The programmer in my fictional story could claim that the simplest explanation for the paradigm could qualify as the most objective description. While he did write 32 simple internal operations, the program had to be trained through the reinforcement of its observable 'behavior', so it would qualify as a true behavioral-reinforcement method. People could make the case that they could improve on the program by including more sophisticated methods in the program, but the simplest paradigm that could produce the desired effects would still suffice as an apt description of the underlying method. Now there are a number of reasons why I do not think that a simple reinforcement scheme, like the one I mentioned in my story, will be first to produce higher intelligence or even feasible as a model for general use. The most obvious one, is that the number of combinations of data objects that are possible when strung together would be so great, that it would be very unlikely that the program would stumble on insight through a simplistic reinforcement method as described. And it would be equally unlikely that the trainer would have the grasp of the complexity of possible combinations to effectively guide the program toward that unlikely goal. To put it another way, the simplistic reinforcement paradigm is really only a substitute for insightful
Re: [agi] U.S. Plan for 'Thinking Machines' Repository
i have higher hopes for the project than richard, failing to see the circular causality alluded to... first, human intellect is quickly overwhelmed when trying to build logic structures with complex relationships or even many simple relationships strung together (we max at four or five recursions in our working memory e.g. unlike richard, we dont think that he didnt tell them what they couldnt do without us)... so we outsource the task to improved methods of abstraction/simplification, programming and more common analogies... second, its ALWAYS about the relationships between objects/concepts, and finding all possibly useful arrangements does appear to be a readily finite problem, one amenable to exhaustive search algorithms it appears... as a side note, does anyone else feel that intelligence and compression (or less formally the ability to summarize) are identical? and the last bit: isnt this guy already doing the things NIST proposes? its just corporate IP and not too available? (not affiliated in any way): http://www.knowledgefoundations.com/Papers.html cheers, tudor On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad Paulsen wrote: Fellow AGI-ers, At the risk of being labeled the list's newsboy... U.S. Plan for 'Thinking Machines' Repository Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday May 28, @07:19PM from the save-those-ideas-for-later dept. An anonymous reader writes Information scientists organized by the U.S.'s NIST say they will create a concept bank that programmers can use to build thinking machines that reason about complex problems at the frontiers of knowledge - from advanced manufacturing to biomedicine. The agreement by ontologists - experts in word meanings and in using appropriate words to build actionable machine commands - outlines the critical functions of the Open Ontology Repository (OOR). More on the summit that produced the agreement here. Interesting, but I am araid that whenever I see someone report a project to collect all the world's knowledge in a nice, centralized format (Cyc, and Daughters-of-Cyc) I cannot help but think of one of the early chapters in Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver, were Wilkins, Leibnitz and others are trying to form a universal grammar in which all the world's facts can be organized in such a way that a (essentially) a thinking machine can be built. Stephenson illustrates the foolishness of this quest with humor, but it is a deeply thought-provoking humor. The main thought that it provokes are these. If we can build something that can use those facts, it must be smart enough to be able collect such information by itself. Not only that, but the way that this hypothetical machine would collect and use the facts might well be such that the format in which the knowledge is represented will be critically dependent on the way that the using and collecting processes operate, and not necessarily like the format that we choose, ahead of time. Today, we most emphatically do not have a system that knows how to (fully) use and collect such facts. Therefore... there is a great danger that any such collection will be useless until the 'thinking machinery' itself is built, and then, when the machinery does get built, the collection of facts will be superfluous. Rather like my 8-year-old son (bless his heart) who, confronted with an essay project that he could not face, started off by spending four solid hours getting the fonts, colors and backgrounds just right. Just my gut feeling, that's all: carry on with what you are doing. Richard Loosemore --- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
