Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Ben Goertzel wrote: Much of this discussion is very abstract, which is I guess how you think about these issues when you don't have a specific AGI design in mind. My view is a little different. If the Novamente design is basically correct, there's no way it can possibly take thousands or hundreds of programmers to implement it. The most I can imagine throwing at it would be a couple dozen, and I think 10-20 is the right number. So if the Novamente design is basically correct, it's would take a team of 10-20 programmers a period of 3-10 years to get to human-level AGI. So you are talking on the order of $9M - $30M. Sadly, we do not have 10-20 dedicated programmers working on Novamente (or associated OpenCog) AGI right now, but rather fractions of various peoples' time (as Novamente LLC is working mainly on various commercial projects that pay our salaries). So my point is not to make a projection regarding our progress (that depends too much on funding levels), just to address this issue of ideal team size that has come up yet again... You know, I am getting pretty tired of hearing this poor mouth crap. This is not that huge a sum to raise or get financed. Hell, there are some very futuristic rich geeks who could finance this single-handed and would not really care that much whether they could somehow monetize the result. I don't believe for a minute that there is no way to do this.So exactly why are you singing this sad song year after year? Even if my timing estimates are optimistic and it were to take 15 years, even so, a team of thousands isn't gonna help things any. If I had a billion dollars and the passion to use it to advance AGI, I would throw amounts between $1M and $50M at various specific projects, I wouldn't try to make one monolithic project. From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. If it is a great deal more than this relatively small amount of money then lets move on to talk about that instead of whining about lack of coin. - samantha --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions - although it is also a framework to end discussions for the moment. 1) Given our general ignorance, everyone is, strictly, entitled to their opinions about the future of AGI. Ben is entitled to his view that it will only take $50M or thereabouts. BUT 2) Not a SINGLE problem of AGI has been solved yet. Not a damn one. Is anyone arguing different? And until you've solved one, you can hardly make *reasonable* predictions about how long it will take to solve the rest - predictions that anyone, including yourself should take seriously- especially if you've got any sense, any awareness of AI's long, ridiculous and incorrigible record of crazy predictions here, (and that's by Minsky's Simon's as well as lesser lights) - by people also making predictions without having solved any of AGI's problems. All investors beware. Massive health wealth warnings. MEANWHILE 3)Others - and I'm not the only one here - take a view more like: the human brain/body is the most awesomely complex machine in the known universe, the product of billions of years of evolution. To emulate it, or parallel its powers, is going to take more like many not just trillions but zillions of dollars - many times global output, many, many Microsoft's. Now right now that's a reasonable POV too. But until you've solved one, just a measly one of AGI's problems, there's not a lot of point in further discussion, is there? Nobody's really gaining from it, are they? It's just masturbation, isn't it? --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Mike Tintner wrote: Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions - although it is also a framework to end discussions for the moment. 1) Given our general ignorance, everyone is, strictly, entitled to their opinions about the future of AGI. Ben is entitled to his view that it will only take $50M or thereabouts. BUT 2) Not a SINGLE problem of AGI has been solved yet. Not a damn one. Is anyone arguing different? And until you've solved one, you can hardly make *reasonable* predictions about how long it will take to solve the rest - predictions that anyone, including yourself should take seriously- especially if you've got any sense, any awareness of AI's long, ridiculous and incorrigible record of crazy predictions here, (and that's by Minsky's Simon's as well as lesser lights) - by people also making predictions without having solved any of AGI's problems. All investors beware. Massive health wealth warnings. MEANWHILE 3)Others - and I'm not the only one here - take a view more like: the human brain/body is the most awesomely complex machine in the known universe, the product of billions of years of evolution. To emulate it, or parallel its powers, is going to take more like many not just trillions but zillions of dollars - many times global output, many, many Microsoft's. Now right now that's a reasonable POV too. But until you've solved one, just a measly one of AGI's problems, there's not a lot of point in further discussion, is there? Nobody's really gaining from it, are they? It's just masturbation, isn't it? Mike, Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of AGI, and let us list them. I have discovered the complex systems problem: this is a major breakthrough. You cannot understand it, or why it is a major breakthrough, but that makes no odds. Everything you say in this post is based on your own ignorance of what AGI actually is. What you are really saying is Nobody has been able to make me understand what AGI has achieved, so AGI is useless. Sorry, but your posts are sounding more and more like incoherent rants. Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Mike: I am a novice to this AGI business and so I am not being cute with the following question: What, in your opinion, would be the first AGI problem to tackle. Perhaps theses various problems can't be priority ordered but nontheless, which problem stands out for you?. Thanks. Eric B. Ramsay Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions - although it is also a framework to end discussions for the moment. 1) Given our general ignorance, everyone is, strictly, entitled to their opinions about the future of AGI. Ben is entitled to his view that it will only take $50M or thereabouts. BUT 2) Not a SINGLE problem of AGI has been solved yet. Not a damn one. Is anyone arguing different? And until you've solved one, you can hardly make *reasonable* predictions about how long it will take to solve the rest - predictions that anyone, including yourself should take seriously- especially if you've got any sense, any awareness of AI's long, ridiculous and incorrigible record of crazy predictions here, (and that's by Minsky's Simon's as well as lesser lights) - by people also making predictions without having solved any of AGI's problems. All investors beware. Massive health wealth warnings. MEANWHILE 3)Others - and I'm not the only one here - take a view more like: the human brain/body is the most awesomely complex machine in the known universe, the product of billions of years of evolution. To emulate it, or parallel its powers, is going to take more like many not just trillions but zillions of dollars - many times global output, many, many Microsoft's. Now right now that's a reasonable POV too. But until you've solved one, just a measly one of AGI's problems, there's not a lot of point in further discussion, is there? Nobody's really gaining from it, are they? It's just masturbation, isn't it? --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Mike, Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of AGI, and let us list them. 1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving problem in, a new domain) 2.Conceptualisation [Invariant Representation] - forming concept of Madonna which can embrace rich variety of different faces/photos of her 3.Visual Object Recognition 4.Aural Object Recognition [dunno proper term here - being able to recognize same melody played in any form] 5.Analogy 6.Metaphor 7.Creativity 8.Narrative Visualisation - being able to imagine and create a visual scenario ( a movie) [just made this problem up - but it's a good one] [By all means let's identify some more unsolved problems BTW..] I think Ben I more or less agreed that if he had really solved 1) - if his pet could really independently learn to play hide-and-seek after having been taught to fetch, it would constitute a major breakthrough, worthy of announcement to the world. And you can be sure it would be provoking a great deal of discussion. As for your discoveries,fine, have all the self-confidence you want, but they have had neither public recognition nor, as I understand, publication or identification. Nor do you have a working machine. And if you're going to claim anyone in AI, like Hofstadter, has solved 5 or 6...puh-lease. I don't think any reasonable person in AI or AGI will claim any of these have been solved. They may want to claim their method has promise, but not that it has actually solved any of them. Which of the above, or any problem of AGI, period, do you claim to have been solved? --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Samantha, You know, I am getting pretty tired of hearing this poor mouth crap. This is not that huge a sum to raise or get financed. Hell, there are some very futuristic rich geeks who could finance this single-handed and would not really care that much whether they could somehow monetize the result. I don't believe for a minute that there is no way to do this.So exactly why are you singing this sad song year after year? ... From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. If it is a great deal more than this relatively small amount of money then lets move on to talk about that instead of whining about lack of coin. This is what I thought in 2001, and what Bruce Klein thought when he started working with me in 2005. In brief, what we thought is something like: OK, so ... On the one hand, we have an AGI design that seems to its sane PhD-scientist creator to have serious potential of leading to human-level AGI. We have a team of professional AI scientists and software engineers who are a) knowledgeable about it, b) eager to work on it, c) in agreement that it has a strong chance of leading to human-level AGI, although with varying opinions on whether the timeline is, say, 7, 10, 15 or 20 years. Furthermore, the individuals involved are at least thoughtful about issues of AGI ethics and the social implications of their work. Carefully-detailed arguments as to why it is believed the AGI design will work exist, but, these are complex, and furthermore do not comprise any sort of irrefutable proof. On the other hand, we have a number of wealthy transhumanists who would love to see a beneficial human-level AGI come about, and who could donate or invest some $$ to this cause without serious risk to their own financial stability should the AGI effort fail. Not only that, but there are a couple related factors a) early non-AGI versions of some of the components of said AGI design are already being used to help make biological discoveries of relevant to life extension (as documented in refereed publications) b) very clear plans exist, including discussions with many specific potential customers, regarding how to make $$ from incremental products along the way to the human-level AGI, if this is the pathway desired So, we talked to a load of wealthy futurists and the upshot is that it's really really hard to get these folks to believe you have a chance at achieving human-level AGI. These guys don't have the background to spend 6 months carefully studying the technical documentation, so they make a gut decision, which is always (so far) that gee, you're a really smart guy, and your team is great, and you're doing cool stuff, but technology just isn't there yet. Novamente has gotten small (but much valued) investments from some visionary folks, and SIAI has had the vision to hire 1.6 folks to work on OpenCog, which is an open-source sister project of the Novamente Cogntion Engine project. I could speculate about the reasons behind this situation, but the reason is NOT that I suck at raising money ... I have been involved in fundraising for commercial software projects before and have been successful at it. I believe that in 10-15 years from now, one will be able to approach the exact same people with the same sort of project, and get greeted with enthusiasm rather than friendly dismissal. Going against prevailing culture is really hard, even if you're dealing with people who **think** they're seeing beyond the typical preconceptions of their culture. Slowly though the idea that AGI is possible and feasible is wending its way into the collective mind. I stress, though, that if one had some kind of convincing, compelling **proof** of being on the correct path to AGI, it would likely be possible to raise $$ for one's project. This proof could be in several possible forms, e.g. a) a mathematical proof, which was accepted by a substantial majority of AI academics b) a working software program that demonstrated human-child-like functionality c) a working robot that demonstrated full dog-like functionality Also, if one had good enough personal connections with the right sort of wealthy folks, one could raise the $$ -- based on their personal trust in you rather than their trust in your ideas. Or of course, being rich and funding your work yourself is always an option (cf Jeff Hawkins) This gets back to a milder version of an issue Richard Loosemore is always raising; the complex systems problem. My approach to AGI is complex systems based, which means that the components are NOT going to demonstrate any general intelligence -- the GI is intended to come about as a holistic, whole-system phenomenon. But not in any kind of mysterious way: we have a detailed, specific theory of why this will occur, in terms of the particular interactions between the components. But what
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
I don't think any reasonable person in AI or AGI will claim any of these have been solved. They may want to claim their method has promise, but not that it has actually solved any of them. Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point? Similarly, up till the moment when the first astronauts walked on the moon, you could have run around yelping that no one has solved the problem of how to make a person walk on the moon, all they've done is propose methods that seem to have promise. It's true -- theories and ideas can always be wrong, and empirical proof adds a whole new level of understanding. (Though, empirical proofs don't exist in a theoretical vacuum, they do require theoretical interpretation. For instance physicists don't agree on which supposed top quark events really were top quarks ... and some nuts still don't believe people walked on the moon, just as even after human-level AGI is achieved some nuts still won't believe it...) Nevertheless, with something as complex as AGI you gotta build stuff based on a theory. And not everyone is going to believe the theory until the proof is there. And so it goes... -- Ben G --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Ben Goertzel: Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point? Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and it's regrettable but it was either that or start taking blood pressure medicine... so *plonk*. It's not necessarily that I disagree with most of his (usually rather obvious) points or think his own ideas (about image schemas or whatever) are worse than other stuff floating around, but his toxic personality makes the benefit not worth the cost. Now I only have to suffer the collateral damage in responses. However, I went to the archives to fetch this message. I do think it would be nice to have tests or problems that one could point to as partial progress... but it's really hard. Any such things have to be fairly rigorously specified (otherwise we'll argue all day about whether they are solved or not -- see Tintner's Creativity problem as an obvious example), and they need to not be AGI complete themselves, which is really hard. For example, Tintner's Narrative Visualization task strikes me as needing all the machinery and a very large knowledge base so by the time a system could do a decent job of this in a general context it would already have demonstrably solved the whole thing. The other common criticism of tests is that they can often be solved by Narrow-AI means (say, current face recognizers which are often better at this task than humans). I don't necessarily think this is a disqualification though... if the solution is provided in the context of a particular architecture with a plausible argument for how the system could have produced the specifics itself, that seems like some sort of progress. I sometimes wonder if a decent measurement of AGI progress might be to measure the ease with which the system can be adapted by its builders to solve narrow AI problems -- sort of a cognitive enhancement measurement. Such an approach makes a decent programming language and development environment be a tangible early step toward AGI but maybe that's not all bad. At any rate, if there were some clearly-specified tests that are not AGI-complete and yet not easily attackable with straightforward software engineering or Narrow AI techniques, that would be a huge boost in my opinion to this field. I can't think of any though, and they might not exist. If it is in fact impossible to find such tasks, what does that say about AGI as an endeavor? --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Mike Tintner wrote: Mike, Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of AGI, and let us list them. 1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving problem in, a new domain) 2.Conceptualisation [Invariant Representation] - forming concept of Madonna which can embrace rich variety of different faces/photos of her 3.Visual Object Recognition 4.Aural Object Recognition [dunno proper term here - being able to recognize same melody played in any form] 5.Analogy 6.Metaphor 7.Creativity 8.Narrative Visualisation - being able to imagine and create a visual scenario ( a movie) [just made this problem up - but it's a good one] In your ignorance, you named a set of targets, not a set of problems. If you want to see these fully functioning, you will see them in the last year of a 10-year AGI project but if we listed to you, the first nine years of that project would be condemned as a complete waste of time. If, on the other hand, you want to see an *in* *principle* solution (an outline of how these can all be implemented), then these in principle solutions are all in existence. It is just that you do not know them, and when we go to the trouble of pointing them out to you (or explaining them to you), you do not understand them for what they are. [By all means let's identify some more unsolved problems BTW..] I think Ben I more or less agreed that if he had really solved 1) - if his pet could really independently learn to play hide-and-seek after having been taught to fetch, it would constitute a major breakthrough, worthy of announcement to the world. And you can be sure it would be provoking a great deal of discussion. As for your discoveries,fine, have all the self-confidence you want, but they have had neither public recognition nor, as I understand, publication Okay, stop rght there. This is a perfect example of the nonsense you utter on this list: you know that I have published a paper on the complex systems problem because you told me recently that you have read the paper. But even though you have read this published paper, all you can do when faced with the real achievement that it contains is to say that (a) you don't understand it, and (b) this published paper that you have already read has not been published! Are there no depths to which you will not stoop? Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Derek Zahn wrote: Ben Goertzel: Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point? Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and it's regrettable but it was either that or start taking blood pressure medicine... so *plonk*. It's not necessarily that I disagree with most of his (usually rather obvious) points or think his own ideas (about image schemas or whatever) are worse than other stuff floating around, but his toxic personality makes the benefit not worth the cost. Now I only have to suffer the collateral damage in responses. Yes, he was in my killfile as well for a long time, then I decided to give him a second chance. Now I am regretting it, so back he goes ... *plonk*. Mike: the only reason I am now ignoring you is that you persistently refuse to educate yourself about the topics discussed on this list, and instead you just spout your amateur opinions as if they were fact. Your inability to distinguish real science from your amateur opinion is why, finally, I have had enough. I apologize to the list for engaging him. I should have just ignored his ravings. However, I went to the archives to fetch this message. I do think it would be nice to have tests or problems that one could point to as partial progress... but it's really hard. Any such things have to be fairly rigorously specified (otherwise we'll argue all day about whether they are solved or not -- see Tintner's Creativity problem as an obvious example), and they need to not be AGI complete themselves, which is really hard. For example, Tintner's Narrative Visualization task strikes me as needing all the machinery and a very large knowledge base so by the time a system could do a decent job of this in a general context it would already have demonstrably solved the whole thing. It looks like you, Ben and I have now all said exactly the same thing, so we have a strong consensus on this. The other common criticism of tests is that they can often be solved by Narrow-AI means (say, current face recognizers which are often better at this task than humans). I don't necessarily think this is a disqualification though... if the solution is provided in the context of a particular architecture with a plausible argument for how the system could have produced the specifics itself, that seems like some sort of progress. I sometimes wonder if a decent measurement of AGI progress might be to measure the ease with which the system can be adapted by its builders to solve narrow AI problems -- sort of a cognitive enhancement measurement. Such an approach makes a decent programming language and development environment be a tangible early step toward AGI but maybe that's not all bad. At any rate, if there were some clearly-specified tests that are not AGI-complete and yet not easily attackable with straightforward software engineering or Narrow AI techniques, that would be a huge boost in my opinion to this field. I can't think of any though, and they might not exist. If it is in fact impossible to find such tasks, what does that say about AGI as an endeavor? My own feeling about this is that when a set of ideas start to gel into one coherent approach to the subject, with a description of those ideas being assembled as a book-length manuscript, and when you read those ideas and they *feel* like progress, you will know that substantial progress is happening. Until then, the only people who might get an advanced feeling that such a work is on the way are the people on the front lines, you see all the pieces coming together just before they are assembled for public consumption. Whether or not someone could write down tests of progress ahead of that point, I do not know. Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Ben:So why is it worth repeating the point?Similarly, up till the moment when the first astronauts walked on the moon, you could have run around yelping that no one has solved the problem of how to make a person walk on the moon, all they've done is propose methods that seem to have promise. I repeated the details because I was challenged. (And unlike Richard, I do answer challenges). The original point - a valid one, I think - is until you've solved one AGI problem, you can't make any reasonable prediction as to WHEN the rest will be solved and how much it will cost in resources. And it's not worth much discussion. AGI is different from moonwalking - that WAS successfully predicted by JFK because they did indeed have technology reasonably likely to bring it about. I would compare AGI predictions with predicting when we will have a mind-reading machine, (except that personally, I think AGI is much harder). Yes, you can have a bit of interesting discussion about that to begin with, but then the subject, i.e. making predictions, exhausts itself, because there are too many unknowns. Ditto here. No? --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Mike Tintner wrote: Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions - although it is also a framework to end discussions for the moment. Sigh. I *was* somewhat tedious in that I am getting more impatient year by year especially as I see more friends succumb to maladies that AGI or even more IA could solve and watch the world spin closer to chaos. However I do not believe you have any business proposing any framework or definitive solution as you do not have the knowledge or chops to do so. - samantha --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Hi Mike Your 1 consists of two separate challenges: (1) reasoning (2) learning IMHO your 3 to 6 can be classified under (3) pattern recognition. I think perhaps even your 2 may flow out of pattern recognition. Of course, the real challenge is to find an algorithmic way (or architecture) to do the above without bumping into exponential explosion.e. move the problem out of the NP-complete arena. (Else an AGI will never exceed human intelligence by a real margin.) =Jean-Paul Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of AGI, and let us list them. 1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving problem in, a new domain) 2.Conceptualisation [Invariant Representation] - forming concept of Madonna which can embrace rich variety of different faces/photos of her 3.Visual Object Recognition 4.Aural Object Recognition [dunno proper term here - being able to recognize same melody played in any form] 5.Analogy 6.Metaphor 7.Creativity 8.Narrative Visualisation - being able to imagine and create a visual scenario ( a movie) [just made this problem up - but it's a good one] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Jean-Paul, More or less yes to your points. (I was only tossing off something quickly). Actually I think there's a common core to 2)-7) and will be setting out something about that soon. But I don't think it's recognizing patterns - on the contrary, the common problem is partly that there ISN'T a pattern to be recognized. If you have to understand the metaphor, the dancing towers, there's no common pattern between human dancers and the skyscrapers referred to. I also think that while there's a common core, each problem has its own complications. Maybe Hawkins is right that all the senses process inputs in basically the same hierarchical fashion - and any mechanical AGI's senses will have to do the same - but if you think about it, the senses evolved gradually, so there must be different reasons for that. (And I would add another unsolved ( unrecognized) problem for AGI: 9)Common Sense Processing - being able to process an event in multiple sensory modalities, and switch between them to solve problems - for example, to be able to touch an object blindfolded, and then draw its outlines visually. ) Jean-Paul: Your 1 consists of two separate challenges: (1) reasoning (2) learning IMHO your 3 to 6 can be classified under (3) pattern recognition. I think perhaps even your 2 may flow out of pattern recognition. Of course, the real challenge is to find an algorithmic way (or architecture) to do the above without bumping into exponential explosion.e. move the problem out of the NP-complete arena. (Else an AGI will never exceed human intelligence by a real margin.) Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of AGI, and let us list them. 1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving problem in, a new domain) 2.Conceptualisation [Invariant Representation] - forming concept of Madonna which can embrace rich variety of different faces/photos of her 3.Visual Object Recognition 4.Aural Object Recognition [dunno proper term here - being able to recognize same melody played in any form] 5.Analogy 6.Metaphor 7.Creativity 8.Narrative Visualisation - being able to imagine and create a visual scenario ( a movie) [just made this problem up - but it's a good one] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Testing AGI (was RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At any rate, if there were some clearly-specified tests that are not AGI-complete and yet not easily attackable with straightforward software engineering or Narrow AI techniques, that would be a huge boost in my opinion to this field. I can't think of any though, and they might not exist. If it is in fact impossible to find such tasks, what does that say about AGI as an endeavor? Text compression is one such test, as I argue in http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html The test is only for language modeling. Theoretically it could be extended to vision or audio processing. For example, to maximally compress video the compressor must understand the physics of the scene (e.g. objects fall down), which can be arbitrarily complex (e.g. a video of people engaging in conversation about Newton's law of gravity). Likewise, maximally compressing music is equivalent to generating or recognizing music that people like. The problem is that the information content of video and audio is dominated by incompressible noise that is nontrivial to remove -- noise being any part of the signal that people fail to perceive. Deciding which parts of the signal are noise is itself AI-hard, so it requires a lossy compression test with human judges making subjective decisions about quality. This is not a big problem for text because the noise level (different ways of expressing the same meaning) is small, or at least does not overwhelm the signal. Long term memory has an information rate of a few bits per second, so any signal you compress should not be many orders of magnitude higher. A problem with text compression is the lack of adequate hardware. There is a 3 way tradeoff between compression ratio, memory, and speed. The top compressor in http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html uses 4.6 GB of memory. Many of the best algorithms could be drastically improved if only they ran on a supercomputer with 100 GB or more. The result is that most compression gains come from speed and memory optimization rather than using more intelligent models. The best compressors use crude models of semantics and grammar. They preprocess the text by token substitution from a dictionary that groups words by topic and grammatical role, then predict the token stream using mixtures of fixed-offset context models. It is roughly equivalent to the ungrounded language model of a 2 or 3 year old child at best. An alternative would be to reduce the size of the test set to reduce computational requirements, as the Hutter prize did. http://prize.hutter1.net/ I did not because I believe the proper way to test an adult level language model is to train it on the same amount of language that an average adult is exposed to, about 1 GB. I would be surprised if a 100 MB test progressed past the level of a 3 year old child. I believe the data set is too small to train a model to learn arithmetic, logic, or high level reasoning. Including these capabilities would not improve compression. Tests on small data sets could be used to gauge early progress. But ultimately, I think you are going to need hardware that supports AGI to test it. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Ben, Good Afternoon. I am a rather new addition to the AGI mailing list and just read your response concerning the future of AGI. I agree with you. The funding is there. The belief that AGI is right around the corner is not. From the people I talk withthey have read Kurzweil and understand the rate of growth of technology (the curve). They also understand that the exponential growth in Kurzweil's graphs represents processing power and this dynamic will substantively increase as nanotechnology moves from MEM to a smaller and smaller (atomic possibly) operating environment. What is difficult for people/investors to gauge is AI/AGI. Businesses and/or government organizations (not including DARPA) need a strategic plan for large investments into future technologies. They understand risk but weigh it against current requirements and long term gain. There are people/organizations ready to invest if a strong rational analysis on the timeline is developed and presented in language that they understand. The latter comment is key. Senior leaders (business, government and just very wealthy investors) are acutely aware of the hype cycle that occurs with all new technologies. I have found that overselling is much worse than underselling. In my previous position I served as a Deputy Chief of a Trends and Forecasting Center for the government. My charter was to provide strategic assessments to corporate leadership for investment purposes. Those investments could include people, funding or priorities of effort. So, I am well versed in the interface between developers, customers, senior leaders and financial backers. Just my personal opinion...but it appears that the exponential technology growth chart, which is used in many of the briefings, does not include AI/AGI. It is processing centric. When you include AI/AGI the exponential technology curve flattens out in the coming years (5-7) and becomes part of a normal S curve of development. While computer power and processing will increase exponentially (as nanotechnology grows) the area of AI will need more time to develop. I would be interested in your thoughts. Regards, Ben I am moving to a new position this summer and will be a visiting professor in academia for two years. --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Hi, Just my personal opinion...but it appears that the exponential technology growth chart, which is used in many of the briefings, does not include AI/AGI. It is processing centric. When you include AI/AGI the exponential technology curve flattens out in the coming years (5-7) and becomes part of a normal S curve of development. While computer power and processing will increase exponentially (as nanotechnology grows) the area of AI will need more time to develop. I would be interested in your thoughts. I think this is because progress toward general AI has been difficult to quantify in the past, and looks to remain difficult to quantify into the future... I am uncertain as to the extent to which this problem can be worked around, though. Let me introduce an analogy problem Understanding the operation of the brain better and better is to scanning the brain with higher and higher spatiotemporal accuracy, as Creating more and more powerful AGI is to what? ;-) The point is that understanding the brain is also a nebulous and hard-to-quantify goal, but we make charts for it by treating brain scan accuracy as a more easily quantifiable proxy variable. What's a comparable proxy variable for AGI? Suggestions welcome! -- Ben Ben --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[singularity] A more accessible summary of the CSP
Since I am making an effort to get a good chunk of stuff written this week and next, I want to let y'all know when I put out new stuff... I have written a short, accessible summary of the CSP argument on my blog, as a preparation for the next phase tomorrow. Hopefully this one will not be as demading as the last (a few hundred words instead of 4,200). Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
