Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Mike, On 9/20/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve: If I were selling a technique like Buzan then I would agree. However, someone selling a tool to merge ALL techniques is in a different situation, with a knowledge engine to sell. The difference AFAICT is that Buzan had an *idea* - don't organize your thoughts about a subject in random order, or list, or tables or other old structures etc. organize them like a map/tree on a page so that you can oversee them. Not a big idea, but an idea, out of wh. he's made money, clearly appeals to many.. Addresses a different audience than I was looking at, but yea, I think I see what you are getting at. If you have a distinctive idea, wh. you may well have, I've missed it you're not repeating it. A tool to merge all techniques is a goal, not an idea. You have to show me that you have an idea - some new insight into general system principles applying to ,say, repair. There is a large body of experience with various knowledge engines of decades past. My ideas are tiny bits of glue that were missed in long past projects that were hastily designed, programmed, presented, and abandoned. In some of these cases, whole approaches were abandoned because of tiny problems in their design or coding. I am just taking the considerable time (now ~6 years) to methodically work though the myriad issues and identify viable approaches to the challenges that buried long past projects. As I have said here before, if not for Weizenbaum's book, Dr. Eliza or a very similar program would have been developed by 1980 and the Internet Singularity would have arrived on the heels of the first Internet deployment. Weizenbaum precipitated a computer disaster on a scale fully comparable to the Perceptron disaster, yet still, no one sees it. And if you are to do focus groups, you will also have to have a new idea to show them test on them. Hmmm, I hadn't even thought about focus groups. I consider this area to be way too subtle for any but computational linguists and similar sorts of experts to participate. So far, the folks working on the Russian Translator have been the most helpful. There is no broad masterstroke of genius behind Dr. Eliza, but instead countless seemingly insignificant details make it work where prior efforts failed. Little details like making users answer questions by editing their problem statements rather than answering the questions directly. Made separately, these decisions would push Dr. Eliza into the same holes that past systems fell into. Instead, it must be designed as a working system. Do you think that I could be wrong in this presumption? Steve Richfield --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Mike, On 9/19/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve: Thanks for wringing my thoughts out. Can you twist a little tighter?! A v. loose practical analogy is mindmaps - it was obviously better for Buzan to develop a sub-discipline/technique 1st, and a program later. MAJOR difference: Buzan's iMindMap does his own particular method, whereas Dr. Eliza is designed to do EVERYONE's methods, being easily extensible by simply adding more knowledge. Dr. Eliza's limitations affect the problems it can handle, rather than the knowledge it can use. What you don't understand, I think, in all your reasoning about repair is that there is probably no principle - however obvious it seems to you, that will not be totally questioned and contradicted, and reasonably so, by someone else. Agreed. So what?! What you don't understand is that the better repairmen are made that way by having larger/different assortments of techniques, often to succeed where repairmen with lesser assortments failed. That there are a few worthless techniques in the assortment is (almost) irrelevant. The ONLY significance of worthless techniques is that they can waste some time, unless of course you allow them to consume a LOT of time (and sometimes enough to kill you), as modern medicine now so often does. The proof is in the pudding. Get yourself a set of principles together, and try them out on appropriately interested parties - some of your potential audience/customers - *before* you go to the trouble of programming. There is a major communications/worldmodel disconnect of some sort here. Much of my life has been doing some sort of repair - auto, electronic, medical, etc. Often, I have succeeded where other experts had previously failed. Their missing piece was usually their inability to use what they DID know to effect the repair, and in failing to do obviously-needed research when dead ends were reached. If there is already a formal repair theory of some sort other than individuals opinions in various sub-domain books, then I have completely missed it. Hence, there is no present body of knowledge or experts, nor people with broad enough experience to value their opinions beyond obviousness. That's obviously good technological/business practice. Do some market research. I think you'll learn a lot. If I were selling a technique like Buzan then I would agree. However, someone selling a tool to merge ALL techniques is in a different situation, with a knowledge engine to sell. Finally, I absolutely agree that many/most experts will reject something like Dr, Eliza, as I have already seen in the medical domain. I have a friend who is the Director of Research at a major university's medical center, and we have discussed this at length. Mainstream medicine is now SO far off track that Americans now spend more money on alternative health than they do on mainstream medicine. This is all wrapped up in degrees, egos, value of old and stale knowledge, inability to keep up to date on entire domains, lack of basic skills, etc., etc. In short, I hear your comments about market research. That is why I see Dr. Eliza as a knowledge fusion tool that could potentially work across the entire Internet and NOT a tool to support experts. I see something like Dr. Eliza as a sort of alternative/successor to Internet Explorer to fuse the Internet to solve problems rather than being just another AI program that might be useful in some sub-domains. What seems SO very obvious to me and what seems to escape everyone else is: The value of knowledge fusion across the Internet seems to be granted by many people. There are a number of projects now working in this direction, e.g. the one at Wikipedia. They all have absolutely insurmountable faults (e.g. the inability to recognize statements of symptoms of the conditions described in various articles) that I have written about on many occasions and will simply never work. I have running demo code to show a way that actually works. Some people have expressed objections, e.g. the need for additional human-entered meta-information, yet no one has shown even a suggestion that there is a way around these objections - that they aren't inherent in the task. Why aren't people starting with my approach and refining it, rather than continuing in other directions with no apparent (informed) hope of ever working? To answer my own question: People act in response to motivation, and their motivations are NOT aligned with success. They need to push out a paper to get their PhD, they are organizing a group of people to work for free on a project when no one would hire them as a project manager, etc. Anyway, until a better realization comes along and bops me on the head, that is the way I see it. Do you see things differently? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed:
Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Steve: If I were selling a technique like Buzan then I would agree. However, someone selling a tool to merge ALL techniques is in a different situation, with a knowledge engine to sell. The difference AFAICT is that Buzan had an *idea* - don't organize your thoughts about a subject in random order, or list, or tables or other old structures etc. organize them like a map/tree on a page so that you can oversee them. Not a big idea, but an idea, out of wh. he's made money, clearly appeals to many.. If you have a distinctive idea, wh. you may well have, I've missed it you're not repeating it. A tool to merge all techniques is a goal, not an idea. You have to show me that you have an idea - some new insight into general system principles applying to ,say, repair. And if you are to do focus groups, you will also have to have a new idea to show them test on them. --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Steve:question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable effort that is worth MUCH more? Well,because when you do just state basic principles - as you constructively started to do - I think you'll find that people can't even agree about those - any more than they can agree about say, the principles of self-help. If they can - if you can state some general systems principles that gain acceptance - then you have the basis for your program, and it'll cost you a helluva lot less effort. --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for being unclear. The two categories of AI that I refer to are the near term smart internet automated economy and longer term artificial human or transhuman phases. In the smart internet phase, individuals with competing goals own parts of the AGI (peers) and the message routing infrastructure provides a market that satisfies human goals efficiently. Peers work to satisfy the goals of their owners. Later, the network will be populated with intelligent peers that have their own goals independent of their (former) owners. Just as the computation, storage, and communication eras of computing lack sharp boundaries, so will the automated economy and transhuman eras. Early on, people will add peers that try to appear human for various reasons, and with various degrees of success. These peers will know a lot about one person (such as its owner) and go to the net for more general knowledge about people. This becomes easier as computers get faster and surveillance becomes more pervasive. Basically, your CMR client knows everything you ever typed into a computer. People may program their peers to become autonomous and emulate their owners after they die. They might work, earn money, and pay for hosting. Later, peers may buy robotic bodies as the technology becomes available. About intelligence testing, early AGI would pass an IQ test or Turing test by routing questions to the appropriate experts. Later, transhumans could do the same, only they might choose not to take your silly test. So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? 3) learning as much as possible Early AGI would do so because it is the most effective strategy to meet the goals of its owners. Later, transhumans would learn because they want to learn. They would want to learn because this is a basic human goal which was copied into them. Humans want to learn because intelligence requires both the ability to learn and the desire to learn. Humans are intelligent because it increases evolutionary fitness. 4) proving as many theorems as possible Early AGI would route your theorem to theorem proving experts, rank the results, and use the results to improve future rankings and future routing of similar questions. Later, transhumans could just ask the net. 5) figuring out how to improve human life as much as possible Early AGI will make the market more efficient, which improves the lives of everyone who uses it. Later, transhumans will have their own ideas what improve means. That is where AGI becomes dangerous. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always advocated a clear seperation between work and PLAY Here the appeal would be amusement / entertainment - not any specified work goal Have my PR - AI call your PR - AI !! and Show Me the $$$ !! As more of the economy is automated, we will spend a greater fraction of our time and money on entertainment. Automatically generating music, movies, art, and artificial worlds are hard AI problems. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Mike, On 9/19/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve:question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable effort that is worth MUCH more? Well,because when you do just state basic principles - as you constructively started to do - I think you'll find that people can't even agree about those No agreement would seem to be needed - just list all of the approaches that sometimes work. Consider: ... 8. Repair is usually done breadth-first, evaluating various approaches before expending lots of effort on any one. 9. The best (and worst) methods are that way because of the domain, problem, and repairman involved. Hence, there will never be agreement among repairmen across domains. 10. The value of any particular principle is in how it works. Go with whatever works. People and computers should (mentally, physically, or computationally) try various approaches until a good one emerges. - any more than they can agree about say, the principles of self-help. OK, let's look a self-help as a repair domain. If you look across many systems of self help, you will see some basic truths: 1. While they have many different names, that there are only a small number of distinct types, e.g. Buddhism and Scientology have a LOT in common. There are many versions of 12 Step, etc. 2. They are easily separable along major lines, e.g. those that are for people with an internal locus of control (e.g. Buddhism), and those for people with an external locus of control (e.g. Christianity). Buddhism will never work for people with an external locus of control, and Christianity will never work for people with an internal locus of control. 3. Each of the methods, while complex in the whole, consist of small and simple steps to take as situations (combinations of symptoms, sub-conditions) dictate. For example, the first step in most 12 Step methods is to recognize a power greater than yourself. Many people are unable to get past this first step - but then again, they usually are not good candidates for 12 Step for other reasons. Hence, while we can't blindly agree which is best, I (or a computer) could ask you a few questions like Do you believe that you control your life, or do you believe that your mother, the government and/or God is in control? to determine locus of control, and select the most appropriate system. If they can - if you can state some general systems principles that gain acceptance - then you have the basis for your program, How does acceptance have anything to do with a basis for a program? It's all in the knowledge and NOT in the programming, so different principles only mean different different knowledge. The only (easily identifiable) basic assumptions that Dr. Eliza relies on seem to be: 1. That statements of symptoms can usually (perfection is NOT needed) be recognized by advanced (variable with negation and timing recognition) shallow parsing methods. 2. That applicable problems to solve have cause and effect chains (to traverse and interrupt). 3. That no traditional computation is needed, other than sometimes invoking canned programs to compute things. 4. That people will actually bother to create clear problem statements. 5. That people will actually use the program. and it'll cost you a helluva lot less effort. There is a year or so of effort either way. One way I get a book to try and sell, and the other way I take on Google. Both ways seem to have their obvious impediments (e.g. will anyone buy such a book) and require comparable efforts. However, with a program, there is more fun and a possibility of a really BIG win. Thanks for wringing my thoughts out. Can you twist a little tighter?! Steve Richfield --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Steve: Thanks for wringing my thoughts out. Can you twist a little tighter?! Steve, A v. loose practical analogy is mindmaps - it was obviously better for Buzan to develop a sub-discipline/technique 1st, and a program later. What you don't understand, I think, in all your reasoning about repair is that there is probably no principle - however obvious it seems to you, that will not be totally questioned and contradicted, and reasonably so, by someone else. The proof is in the pudding. Get yourself a set of principles together, and try them out on appropriately interested parties - some of your potential audience/customers - *before* you go to the trouble of programming. That's obviously good technological/business practice. Do some market research. I think you'll learn a lot. --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this is the problem. Although some people have the goal of making an artificial person with all the richness and nuance of a sentient creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada yada.. some of us are just interested in making more intelligent systems to do automated tasks. For some reason people think we're going to do this by making an artificial person and then enslaving them.. that's not going to happen because its just not necessary. In this case what you're doing is really narrow AI, not AGI. Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. I described one protocol (competitive message routing, or CMR) to make this happen at http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html but the reality will probably be more complex, using many protocols to achieve the same result. Regardless of the exact form, we can estimate its cost. The human labor now required to run the global economy was worth US $66 trillion in 2006 and is increasing at 5% per year. At current interest rates, the value of an automated economy is about $1 quadrillion. We should expect to pay this much, because there is a tradeoff between having it sooner and waiting until the cost of hardware drops. This huge cost requires a competitive system with distributed ownership in which information has negative value and resource owners compete for attention and reputation by providing quality data. CMR, like any distributed knowledge base, is hostile: we will probably spend as many CPU cycles and human labor filtering spam and attacks as detecting useful features in language and video. The second goal of AGI is uploading and intelligence augmentation. It requires advances in modeling, scanning, and programming human brains and bodies. You are programmed by evolution to fear death, so creating a copy of you that others cannot distinguish from you that will be turned on after you die has value to you. Whether the copy is really you and contains your consciousness is an unimportant philosophical question. If you see your dead friends brought back to life with all of their memories and behavior intact (as far as you can tell), you will probably consider it a worthwhile investment. Brain scanning is probably not required. By the time we have the technology to create artificial generic humans, surveillance will probably be so cheap and pervasive that creating a convincing copy of you could be done just by accessing public information about you. This would include all of your communication through computers (email, website accesses, phone calls, TV), and all of your travel and activities in public places captured on video. Uploads will have goals independent of their owners because their owners have died. They will also have opportunities not available to human brains. They could add CPU power, memory, I/O, and bandwidth. Or they could reprogram their brains, to live in simulated Utopian worlds, modify their own goals to want what they already have, or enter euphoric states. Natural selection will favor the former over the latter. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. Then you have a hybrid human/artificial intelligence, which does not fully automate the economy, but only partially does so -- it still relies on human experts. -- Ben --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Ben, IMHO... On 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans Depending on the details, there are already words in our English vocabulary for these: Gods? Aliens? Masters? Keepers? Enslavers? Monsters? etc. I have yet to hear a convincing case for any of them. The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. Sounds a bit like my Dr.Eliza. Then you have a hybrid human/artificial intelligence, which does not fully automate the economy, but only partially does so -- it still relies on human experts. Of course, the ULTIMATE intelligence should be able to utilize ALL expertise - be it man or machine. My concept with Dr. Eliza was for it to handle repeated queries, and people to answer new (to the machine) queries by adding the knowledge needed to answer them. Similar repeated queries in the future would then be answered automatically. By my calculations, the vast majority of queries could be handled using the knowledge entered in only a few expert years, so soon our civilization could focus its entire energy on the really important unanswered questions, rather than having everyone rediscover the same principles in life. For obvious (to me, but maybe I should explain?), such an engine would necessarily be SIMPLE - on the scale of Dr. Eliza, and nothing at all like an AGI. The complexity absolutely MUST be in the data/knowledge/wisdom and NOT in the engine itself, for otherwise, real-world structural detail that ran orthogonal to the machine's structure would be necessarily be forever beyond the machine's ability to deal with. I am NOT saying that Dr. Eliza is it, but it seems closer than other approaches, and close enough to start considering what it can NOT do that needs doing to achieve the goal of utilizing entered knowledge to answer queries. So, after MANY postings by both of us, I think I can clearly express our fundamental difference in views, for us and others to refine: View #1 (yours, stated from my viewpoint) is that machines with super human-like intelligence will be useful to humans, as have machines with super computational abilities (computers). This may be so, but I have yet to see any evidence or a convincing case (see view #2). View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs. Note that my own US Patent 4,274,684http://www.delphion.com/details?patent_number=4274684is for a bearing design that was refined by computer. However, such simple programs are fundamentally limited to human-contributed knowledge/wisdom, and will never ever come up with any new knowledge/wisdom of their own. My counter: True, but neither will an AGI come up with any new and useful knowledge/wisdom based on the crap that we might enter. It would have to discover this for itself, probably after years/decades of observation and interaction. Our own knowledge/wisdom comes with our own erroneous prejudices, and hence would be of little value to developing new knowledge/wisdom. Our civilization comes from just that - civilization. A civilization of AGIs might indeed evolve into something powerful, but if you just finished building one and turned it on tomorrow, it probably wouldn't do anything valuable in your lifetime. Your counter? Steve Richfield --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans That's what I mean by an automated economy. Google is already more intelligent than any human at certain tasks. So is a calculator. Both are benevolent. They differ in the fraction of our tasks that they can do for us. When that fraction is 100%, that's AGI. The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. Then you have a hybrid human/artificial intelligence, which does not fully automate the economy, but only partially does so -- it still relies on human experts. If humans are to remain in control of AGI, then we have to make informed, top level decisions. You can call this work if you want. But if we abdicate all thinking to machines, then where does that leave us? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs. Steve, In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert, perhaps, that could help analyse breakdowns in say, the human body, a car or any of many other machines, a building or civil structure, etc. etc. And it's certainly an idea worth exploring. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is any more viable than a proper AGI - because, I suspect, it will run up against the same problems of generalizing - e.g. though breakdowns may be v. similar in many different kinds of machines, technological and natural, they will also each have their own special character. If you are serious about any such project, it might be better to develop it first as an intellectual discipline.rather than a program to test its viability - perhaps what it really comes down to is a form of systems thinking or science. --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
I would go further. Humans have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted in the long term even with the capabilities that we already possess. We are too likely to have ego-centric rulers who make decisions not only for their own short-term benefit, but with an explicit After me the deluge mentality. Sometimes they publicly admit it. And history gives examples of rulers who were crazier than any leading a major nation-state at this time. If humans were to remain in control, and technical progress stagnates, then I doubt that life on earth would survive the century. Perhaps it would, though. Microbes can be very hardy. If humans were to remain in control, and technical progress accelerates, then I doubt that life on earth would survive the century. Not even microbes. I don't, however, say that we shouldn't have figurehead leaders who, within constraints, set the goals of the (first generation) AGI. But the constraints would need to be such that humanity would benefit. This is difficult when those nominally in charge not only don't understand what's going on, but don't want to. (I'm not just talking about greed and power-hunger here. That's a small part of the problem.) For that matter, I consider Eliza to be a quite important feeler from the future. AGI as psychologist is an underrated role, but one that I think could be quite important. And it doesn't require a full AGI (though Eliza was clearly below the mark). If things fall out well, I expect that long before full AGIs show up, sympathetic companions will arrive. This is a MUCH simpler problem, and might well help stem the rising tide of insanity. A next step might be a personal secretary. This also wouldn't require full AGI, though to take maximal advantage of it, it would require a body, but a minimal version wouldn't. A few web-cams for eyes and mics for ears, and lots of initial help in dealing with e-mail, separating out which bills are legitimate. Eventually it could, itself, verify that bills were legitimate and pay them, illegitimate and discard them, or questionable and present them to it's human for processing. It's a complex problem, probably much more so than the companion, but quite useful, and well short of requiring AGI. The question is, at what point do these entities start acquiring a morality. I would assert that it should be from the very beginning. Even the companion should try to guide it's human away from immoral acts. As such, the companion is acting as a quasi-independent agent, and is exerting some measure of control. (More control if it's more skillful, or it's human is more amenable.) When one gets to the secretary, it's exhibiting (one hopes), honesty and just behavior (e.g., not billing for services that it doesn't believe were rendered). At each step along the way the morality of the agent has implications for the destination that will be arrived at, as each succeeding agent is built from the basis of its predecessor. Also note that scaling is important, but not determinative. One can imagine the same entity, in different instantiations, being either the secretary to a school teacher or to a multi-national corporation. (Of course the hardware required would be different, but the basic activities are, or could be, the same. Specialized training would be required to handle the government regulations dealing with large corporations, but it's the same basic functions. If one job is simpler than the other, just have the program able to handle either and both of them.) So. Unless one expects an overnight transformation (a REALLY hard takeoff), AGIs will evolve in the context of humans as directors to replace bureaucracies...but with their inherent morality. As such, as they occupy a larger percentage of the bureaucracy, that section will become subject to their morality. People will remain in control, just as they are now...and orders that are considered immoral will be ... avoided. Just as bureaucracies do now. But one hopes that the evolving AGIs will have superior moralities. Ben Goertzel wrote: Keeping humans in control is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable, IMO. I am interested of course in a beneficial outcome for humans, and also for the other minds we create ... but this does not necessarily involve us controlling these other minds... ben g If humans are to remain in control of AGI, then we have to make informed, top level decisions. You can call this work if you want. But if we abdicate all thinking to machines, then where does that leave us? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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/?;
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Umm, who's goals are these? Who said they are the [..] goals of AGI? I'm pretty sure that what I want AGI for is going to be different to what you want AGI for as to what anyone else wants AGI for.. and any similarities are just superficial. And to boot, both of you don't really know what you want. You may try to present plans as points designating a certain level of utility you want to achieve through AI, by showing feasible plans that are quite good in themselves. But these are neither the best scenarios available, nor what will actually come to pass. See this note by Yudkowsky: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0212/5957.html So if you're thinking that what you want involves chrome and steel, lasers and shiny buttons to press, neural interfaces, nanotechnology, or whatever great groaning steam engine has a place in your heart, you need to stop writing a science fiction novel with yourself as the main character, and ask yourself who you want to be. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Thursday 18 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote: In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert, perhaps, that could help analyse breakdowns in say, the human body, a car or any of many other machines, a building or civil structure, etc. etc. And it's certainly an idea worth exploring. That's just one of the many projects I have going, however. It's easy enough to wire it up to a simple perceptron, or weights-adjustable additive function, or even physically up to a neural tissue culture for sorting through the hiss and the noise of 'bad results'. This isn't your fabled intelligence. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is any more viable than a proper AGI - because, I suspect, it will run up against the same It's not aiming to be AGI in the first place though. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And to boot, both of you don't really know what you want. What we want has been programmed into our brains by the process of evolution. I am not pretending the outcome will be good. Once we have the technology to have everything we want, or to want what we have, then a more intelligent species will take over. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Matt M wrote: Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans That's what I mean by an automated economy. Google is already more intelligent than any human at certain tasks. So is a calculator. Both are benevolent. They differ in the fraction of our tasks that they can do for us. When that fraction is 100%, that's AGI. I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like Google etc.) are going to achieve general intelligence at the human level or anywhere near. I think you need an AGI architecture approach that is fundamentally different from narrow-AI approaches... ben --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Umm, who's goals are these? Who said they are the [..] goals of AGI? I'm pretty sure that what I want AGI for is going to be different to what you want AGI for as to what anyone else wants AGI for.. and any similarities are just superficial. So, I guess I should say, the two commercial applications of AGI. I realize people are working on AGI today as pure research, to better understand the brain, to better understand how to solve hard problems, and so on. I think eventually this knowledge will be applied for profit. Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: general intelligence at the human level I hear you say these words a lot. I think, by using the word level, you're trying to say something different to general intelligence just like humans have but I'm not sure everyone else reads it that way. Can you clarify? Humans have all these interests that, although they might be interesting to study with AGI, I'm not terribly interested in putting in an AGI that I put to work. I don't need an AGI that cries for its mother, or thinks about eating, or yearns for freedom and so I simply won't teach it these things. If, by some fortuitous accident, it happens to develop any of these concepts, or any other concepts that I deem useless for the tasks I set it, I'll expect them to be quickly purged from its limited memory space to make room for concepts that are useful. As such, I can imagine an AGI having a human level intelligence that is very different to a human-like intelligence. This is not to say that creating an AGI with human-like intelligence is necessarily a bad thing. Some people want to create simulated humans, and that's interesting too.. just not as interesting to me. Trent --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? Trent --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like Google etc.) are going to achieve general intelligence at the human level or anywhere near. I think you need an AGI architecture approach that is fundamentally different from narrow-AI approaches... Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be built. I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the human level, beyond, or anywhere near... Also, what do you mean by human level intelligence? What test do you use? My calculator already surpasses human level intelligence depending on the tests I give it. Yes, and my dog surpasses human level intelligence at finding poop in a grassy field ... so what?? ;-) If I need to specify a test right now I'll just use the standard IQ tests as a reference, or else the Turing Test But I don't think these tests are ideal by any means... One of the items on my list for this fall is the articulation of a clear set of metrics for evaluating developing, learning AGI systems as they move toward human-level AI ... -- Ben G --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? A third one occurred to me: launching a self improving or evolving AGI to consume all available resources, i.e. an intelligent worm or self replicating nanobots. This really isn't a useful application, but I'm sure somebody, somewhere, might think it would be really cool to see if it would launch a singularity and/or wipe out all DNA based life. Oh, I'm sure the first person to try it would take precautions like inserting a self destruct mechanism that activates after some number of replications. (The 1988 Morris worm had software intended to slow its spread, but it had a bug). Or maybe they will be like the scientists who believed that the idea of a chain reaction in U-235 was preposterous... (Thankfully, the scientists who actually built the first atomic pile took some precautions, such as standing by with an axe to cut a rope suspending a cadmium control rod in case things got out of hand. They got lucky because of an unanticipated phenomena in which a small number of nuclei had delayed fission, which made the chain reaction much easier to control). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface Everyone should have one The market would be virtually unlimited ... John L www.ethicalvalues.com - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source) --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? A third one occurred to me: launching a self improving or evolving AGI to consume all available resources, i.e. an intelligent worm or self replicating nanobots. This really isn't a useful application, but I'm sure somebody, somewhere, might think it would be really cool to see if it would launch a singularity and/or wipe out all DNA based life. Oh, I'm sure the first person to try it would take precautions like inserting a self destruct mechanism that activates after some number of replications. (The 1988 Morris worm had software intended to slow its spread, but it had a bug). Or maybe they will be like the scientists who believed that the idea of a chain reaction in U-235 was preposterous... (Thankfully, the scientists who actually built the first atomic pile took some precautions, such as standing by with an axe to cut a rope suspending a cadmium control rod in case things got out of hand. They got lucky because of an unanticipated phenomena in which a small number of nuclei had delayed fission, which made the chain reaction much easier to control). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? Perhaps you could list some uses of a computer that don't fall into the category of (1) computation (2) communication. Do you see how pointless reasoning at this level of abstraction is? In the few short decades we've had personal computers the wealth of different uses for *general* computation has been enchanting. Lumping them together and claiming you understand their effect on the world as a result is ridiculous. What commercial applications people will apply AGI to is just as hard to predict as what applications people would apply the personal computer to. My comment was meant to indicate that your hubris in assuming you have *any* idea what applications people will come up with for readily available AGI is about on par with predictions for the use of digital computers.. if not more so, as general intelligence is orders of magnitude more disruptive than general computation. And to get back to the original topic of conversation, putting restrictions on the use of supposedly open source code, the effects of those restrictions can no more be predicted than the potential applications of the technology. Which, I think, is a rational piler of the need for freedom.. you don't know better, so who are you to put these restrictions on others? Trent --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be built. I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the human level, beyond, or anywhere near... Well, keep in mind that I am not trying to build a human-like AGI with its own goals. I am designing a distributed system with billions of owners, each of whom has their own interests and (conflicting) goals. To the user, the AGI is like a smarter internet. It would differ from Google in that any message you post is instantly available to anyone who cares (human or machine). There is no distinction between queries and documents. Posting a message could initiate an interactive conversation, or result in related messages posted later being sent to you. A peer needs two types of knowledge. It knows about some specialized topic, and it also knows which other peers are experts on related topics. For simple peers, related just means they share the same words, and a peer is simply a cache of messages posted and received recently by its owner. In my CMR proposal, messages are stamped with the ID and time of origin as well as any peers they were routed through. This cached header information constitutes knowledge about related peers. When a peer receives a message, it compares the words in it to cached messages and routes a copy to the peers listed in the headers of those messages. Peers have their own policies regarding their areas of specialization, which can be as simple as giving the cache priority to messages originating from its owner. There is no provision to delete messages from the network once they are posted. Each peer would have its own deletion policy. The environment is competitive and hostile. Peers compete for reputation and attention by providing quality information, which allows them to charge more for routing targeted ads. Peers are responsible for authenticating their sources, and risk blacklisting if they route too much spam. Peers thus have an incentive to be intelligent, for example, using better language models such as a stemmer, thesaurus, and parser to better identify related messages, or providing specialized services that understand a narrow subset of natural language, the way Google calculator understands questions like how many gallons in 50 cubic feet? So yeah, it is a little different than narrow AI. As to why I'm not building it, it's because I estimate it will cost $1 quadrillion. Google controls about 1/1000 of the computing power of the internet. I am talking about building something 1000 times bigger. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface Everyone should have one The market would be virtually unlimited ... That falls under the category of (1) doing work. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source) --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? 3) learning as much as possible 4) proving as many theorems as possible 5) figuring out how to improve human life as much as possible Of course, if you wish to put these under the category of doing work that's fine ... in a physics sense I guess every classical physical process does work ... ben --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? Perhaps you could list some uses of a computer that don't fall into the category of (1) computation (2) communication. Do you see how pointless reasoning at this level of abstraction is? No it is not. (and besides, there is (3) storage). We can usefully think of the primary uses of computers going through different phases, e.g. 1950-1970 - computation (numerical calculation) 1970-1990 - storage (databases) 1990-2010 - communication (internet) 2010-2030 - profit-oriented AI (automating the economy) 2030-2050 - brain augmentation and uploading And to get back to the original topic of conversation, putting restrictions on the use of supposedly open source code, the effects of those restrictions can no more be predicted than the potential applications of the technology. Which, I think, is a rational piler of the need for freedom.. you don't know better, so who are you to put these restrictions on others? I don't advocate any such thing, even if it were practical. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
- Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source) --- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface Everyone should have one The market would be virtually unlimited ... That falls under the category of (1) doing work. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always advocated a clear seperation between work and PLAY Here the appeal would be amusement / entertainment - not any specified work goal Have my PR - AI call your PR - AI !! and Show Me the $$$ !! JLM www.emotionchip.net --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Mike, On 9/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs. Steve, In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert, perhaps, that could help analyse breakdowns in say, the human body, a car or any of many other machines, a building or civil structure, etc. etc. And it's certainly an idea worth exploring. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is any more viable than a proper AGI - because, I suspect, it will run up against the same problems of generalizing - e.g. though breakdowns may be v. similar in many different kinds of machines, technological and natural, they will also each have their own special character. Certainly true. That is why it must incorporate lots of domain-specific knowledge rather than being a completed work at the get-go. Every domain has its own, as you put it, special character. If you are serious about any such project, it might be better to develop it first as an intellectual discipline.rather than a program to test its viability - perhaps what it really comes down to is a form of systems thinking or science. This has been done over and over again by many people in various disciplines (e.g. *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*). Common rules/heuristics have emerged, e.g.: 1. Fixing your biggest problem will fix 80% of its manifestations. Then, to work on the remaining 20%, loop back to the beginning of this rule... 2. Complex systems usually only suffer from dozens, not thousands, of potential problems. The knowledge base needed to fix the vast majority of problems in any particular domain is surprisingly short. 3. Symptoms are usually expressed simply, e.g. shallow parsing would recognize most of them. 4. Chronic problems are evidence of a lack of knowledge/understanding. 5. Repair is a process and not an act. We must design that process to lead to a successful repair. 6. Often the best repair process is to simply presume that the failure is the cheapest thing that could possibly fail, and proceed on that assumption. This often leads to the real problem, and with a minimum of wasted effort. 7. Etc. I could go on like this for quite a while. I have considered writing a book, something like Introduction to Repair Theory that outlines how to successfully tackle hypercomplex systems like our own bodies, even where millions of dollars in failed research has preceded us. The same general methods can be applied to repairing large (e.g. VME) circuit boards with no documentation, addressing social and political problems, etc. My question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable effort that is worth MUCH more? From what I have seen, some disciplines like auto mechanics are open to (and indeed are the source of much of) this sort of technology, Other disciplines like medicine are completely closed-minded and are actively disinterested. Hence, neither of these disciplines would benefit much if any at all. Only disciplines that are somewhere in between could benefit, and I don't at the moment know of any such disciplines. Do you? However, a COMPUTER removes the human ego from the equation, so that people would simply presume that it runs on PFM (Pure Frigging Magic) and accept advice that they would summarily reject if it came from a human. Anyway, those are my thoughts for your continuing comment. Steve Richfield --- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
