Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps

2010-08-07 Thread Russell Wallace
If you can do better voice recognition, that's a significant application in its own right, as well as having uses in other applications e.g. automated first layer for call centers. If you can do better image/video recognition, there are a great many uses for that -- look at all the things people

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

2010-08-02 Thread Russell Wallace
I don't often request list moderation, but if this kind of off-topic spam and clueless trolling doesn't call for it, nothing does, so: I hereby request that a moderator take appropriate action. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Sometime when you are

Re: [agi] AGI Alife

2010-07-27 Thread Russell Wallace
I spent a while back in the 90s trying to make AGI and alife converge, before establishing to my satisfaction the approach is a dead end: we will never have anywhere near enough computing power to make alife evolve significant intelligence (the only known success took 4 billion years on a

Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI

2010-06-28 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: But, that's why it is important to force oneself to solve them in such a way that it IS applicable to AGI. It doesn't mean that you have to choose a problem that is so hard you can't cheat. It's unnecessary to do that

Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI

2010-06-28 Thread Russell Wallace
. It is great at certain narrow applications, but no where near where it needs to be for AGI. Dave On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Russell Wallace russell.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Having experience with the full problem

Re: [agi] A fundamental limit on intelligence?!

2010-06-21 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.com wrote: That being the case, why don't elephants and other large creatures have really gigantic brains? This seems to be SUCH an obvious evolutionary step. Personally I've always wondered how elephants managed to evolve

Re: [agi] A fundamental limit on intelligence?!

2010-06-21 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.com wrote: Another pet peeve of mine. They could/should do MUCH more fault tolerance than they now are. Present puny efforts are completely ignorant of past developments, e.g. Tandem Nonstop computers. Or perhaps they

Re: [agi] What Must a World Be That a Humanlike Intelligence May Develop In It?

2009-01-13 Thread Russell Wallace
Melting and boiling at least should be doable: assign every bead a temperature, and let solid interbead bonds turn liquid above a certain temperature and disappear completely above some higher temperature. --- agi Archives:

Re: [agi] What Must a World Be That a Humanlike Intelligence May Develop In It?

2009-01-13 Thread Russell Wallace
And it occurs to me you could even have fire. Let fire be an element, whose beads have negative gravitational mass. Beads of fuel elements like wood have a threshold temperature above which they will turn into fire beads, with release of additional heat.

Re: [agi] What Must a World Be That a Humanlike Intelligence May Develop In It?

2009-01-13 Thread Russell Wallace
Yeah :-) though boiling an egg by putting it in a pot of boiling water, that much I think should be doable. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Indeed... but cake-baking just won't have the same nuances ;-) On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Russell Wallace

Re: [agi] What Must a World Be That a Humanlike Intelligence May Develop In It?

2009-01-12 Thread Russell Wallace
I think this sort of virtual world is an excellent idea. I agree with Benjamin Johnston's idea of a unified object model where everything consists of beads. I notice you mentioned distributing the computation. This would certainly be valuable in the long run, but for the first version I would

Re: [agi] What Must a World Be That a Humanlike Intelligence May Develop In It?

2009-01-12 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Benjamin Johnston johns...@it.uts.edu.au wrote: Actually, I think it would be easier, more useful and more portable to distribute the computation rather than trying to make it to run on a GPU. If it would be easier, fair enough; I've never programmed a GPU, I

Re: [agi] Introducing Steve's Theory of Everything in cognition.

2008-12-26 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: That's not to say that I don't think some representations are fundamentally more useful than others-- for example, I know that some proofs are astronomically larger in 1st-order logic as compared to 2nd-order logic,

Re: [agi] Should I get a PhD?

2008-12-17 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Paul Cray pmc...@gmail.com wrote: In the UK, it is certainly possible to proceed directly to a PhD without doing an MSc or much in the way of coursework, provided you have a good enough Bachelor's degree. As a self-funded student, it would just be a matter of

Re: [agi] Machine Knowledge and Inverse Machine Knowledge...

2008-12-10 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see how, because it is completely unbounded and HIGHLY related to specific platforms and products. I could envision a version that worked for a specific class of problems on a particular platform, but it would

Re: [agi] Machine Knowledge and Inverse Machine Knowledge...

2008-12-10 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe I should adopt the ORCAD model, where I provide it for free for a while, then start inching the price up and UP and UP. Bad for PR. I suggest providing a free trial but making it clear from the outset there will be

Re: [agi] Machine Knowledge and Inverse Machine Knowledge...

2008-12-09 Thread Russell Wallace
As an application domain for Dr. Eliza, medicine has the obvious advantage of usefulness, but the disadvantage that it's hard to assess performance -- specific data is largely unavailable for privacy reasons, and most of us lack the expertise to properly assess it even if it were available. Is

Re: [agi] JAGI submission

2008-11-25 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: summed up in the last two words of the abstract: without input. Who ever said that RSI had anything to do with programs that had no input? It certainly wasn't a strawman as of a couple of years ago; I've had arguments

Re: [agi] Whole Brain Emultion (WBE) - A Roadmap

2008-11-05 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brains however are not nearly so sensitive to small errors, and in some cases fairly extensive damage can be sustained without causing the entire system to fail. Let's face it, they're not that insensitive; some debugging

Re: [agi] Unification by index?

2008-11-03 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Prolog clause database effectively has this same problem. It solves it simply by indexing on the functor of the outermost term and the first argument of that term. This may be enough for your problem. As Donald Knuth

[agi] Unification by index?

2008-10-31 Thread Russell Wallace
In classical logic programming, there is the concept of unification, where one expression is matched against another, and one or both expressions may contain variables. For example, (FOO ?A) unifies with (FOO 42) by setting the variable ?A = 42. Suppose you have a database of N expressions, and

Re: [agi] Unification by index?

2008-10-31 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The closest thing I can think of is Rete algorithm --- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_algorithm Thanks! If I'm understanding correctly, the Rete algorithm only handles lists of constants and variables, not general

Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence

2008-10-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like this, anybody

Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence

2008-10-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate.

Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence

2008-10-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app

Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence

2008-10-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, you don't lock it into an instance in time. You make it selectively scalable. When your app or your application's resources span more than one machine you need to organize that. The choice on how you do so effects

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-25 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are systems that do just that, constructing models of a program and representing conditions of absence of a bug as huge formulas. They work with various limitations, theorem-prover based systems using

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-25 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that people are working on this specific technical problem for 30 years, (see the scary amount of work by Cousot's lab, http://www.di.ens.fr/~cousot/COUSOTpapers/ ), and they are still tackling fixed invariants,

Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is no AGI

2008-10-25 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone else want to take up the issue of whether there is a distinction between competent scientific research and competent learning (whether or not both are being done by a machine) and, if so, what that distinction is?

[agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
I understand that some here have already started a project in a given language, and aren't going to change at this late date; this is addressed to those for whom it's still an open question. The choice of language is said to not matter very much, and there are projects for which this is true. AGI

Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is no AGI

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well as a somewhat good chess instructor myself, I have to say I completely agree with it. People who play well against computers rarely rank above first time players.. in fact, most of them tend to not even know the

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why mix AI-written code and your own code? Example: you want the AI to generate code to meet a spec, which you provided in the form of a fitness function. If the problem isn't trivial and you don't have a million years to

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russel, in what capacity do you use that language? In all capacities, for both hand written and machine generated content. Do AI algorithms write in it? That's the idea, once said AI algorithms are implemented. Where

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, my point was that maybe the mistake is use of additional language constructions and not their absence? You yourself should be able to emulate anything in lambda-calculus (you can add interpreter for any extension

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd write it in a separate language, developed for human programmers, but keep the language with which AI interacts minimalistic, to understand how it's supposed to grow, and not be burdened by technical details in the

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd write this specification in language it understands, including a library that builds more convenient primitives from that foundation if necessary. Okay, so you'd waste a lot of irreplaceable time creating a homebrew

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, specifics. What is this specification thing? What kind of task are to be specified in it? Where does it lead, where does it end? At the low end, you could look at some of the fitness functions that have been written

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Due to a characteristic paucity of datatypes, all powerful, and a terse, readable syntax, I usually recommend Python for any project that is just out the gate. It's my favourite way by far at present to mangle huge tables.

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This will be practical once we have a million-fold decrease in the cost of computation, based on the cost of simulating a brain sized neural network. It could occur sooner if we discover more efficient solutions. So far

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that allows AI to understand the code, without directly helping it. In this case teaching it to understand these other languages might be a better first step. And to do that you need to give it a specification of those

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Russell, Although I've already chosen an implementation language for my Texai project - Java, I believe that my experience may interest you. Very much so, thank you. I moved up one level of procedural abstraction to

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why you need a fault tolerant language that works well with redundancy. However you still have the inherent limitation that genetic algorithms can learn no faster than 1 bit per population doubling. More to the

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a specific problem: jumping right to the code generation to specification doesn't work, because you'd need too much specification. At the same time, a human programmer will need much less specification, so it's a

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are describing it as a step one, with writing huge specifications by hand in formally interpretable language. I skipped a lot of details because this thread is on programming languages not my roadmap to AGI :-)

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting! I have a good friend who is also an AGI enthusiast who followed the same path as you ... a lot of time burned making his own superior, stripped-down, AGI-customized variant of LISP, followed by a decision to

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Instead of arguing language, why don't you argue platform? Platform is certainly an interesting question. I take the view that Common Lisp has the advantage of allowing me to defer the choice of platform. You take the view that

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Composed statements generate Java statements such as an assignment statement, block statement and so forth. You can see that there is a tree structure that can be navigated when performing a deductive composition operation

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Genetic algorithms implement a beam search. It is linear in the best case and exponential in the worst case. It depends on the shape of the search space. It turns out that real search spaces are deceptive, so that

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's not supposed to be a generic language war, that becomes relevant. Fair point. On the other hand, I'm not yet ready to write a detailed road map out as far as fix user interface bugs in Firefox. Okay, here are some

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really. Although the distinguishing feature of a Lisp syntax tree is a nested list, and the fact that my composition framework is also a tree does not make that framework a Lisp family language. What do you see as the

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell, Let me conclude this particular point by agreeing that the Texai program composition framework is a domain-specific programming language whose purpose is to express algorithms in tree form, from which Java source

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I write software for analysis of C/C++ programs to find bugs in them (dataflow analysis, etc.). Where does AI come into this? I'd really like to know. Wouldn't you find AI useful? Aren't there bugs that slip past your

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This general sentiment doesn't help if I don't know what to do specifically. Well, given a C/C++ program that does have buffer overrun or stray pointer bugs, there will typically be a logical proof of this fact; current

Re: [agi] On programming languages

2008-10-24 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only because it is hard to come up with representations that can be incrementally modified (don't break when you flip 1 bit). No, I came up with some representations that didn't break, a sufficiently large percentage of the

Re: [agi] constructivist issues

2008-10-21 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As it happens, this definition of meaning admits horribly-terribly-uncomputable-things to be described! (Far worse than the above-mentioned super-omegas.) So, the truth or falsehood is very much not computable. I'm

Re: [agi] constructivist issues

2008-10-21 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The wikipedia article Ben cites is definitely meant for mathematicians, so I will try to give an example. Yes indeed -- thanks! The halting problem asks us about halting facts for a single program. To make it worse, I

Re: [agi] constructivist issues

2008-10-21 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you there. Our disagreement is about what formal systems a computer can understand. I'm also not quite sure what the problem is, but suppose we put it this way: I think the most useful way to understand the

Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list

2008-10-15 Thread Russell Wallace
Split seems reasonable to me. Right now this is the closest there is to a venue specifically for AGI engineering, whereas there are other places to discuss AGI philosophy. (For example, AGI philosophy would presumably be on topic for extropy-chat.) As for the suggestions that we regress to the

Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list

2008-10-15 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The below suggestion is a perfect illustration of why I have given up on the list: it shows that the AGI list has become, basically, just a vehicle for the promotion of Ben's projects and preferences, while everything

Re: Defining AGI (was Re: AW: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list)

2008-10-15 Thread Russell Wallace
I'm currently investigating the problem of theorem proving as an AGI domain, not so much for its own sake as from the following reasoning: AGI needs to learn procedural knowledge, which means program code; and reasoning about program code requires formal logic. From a programming viewpoint,

Re: AW: Defining AGI (was Re: AW: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list)

2008-10-15 Thread Russell Wallace
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Goedel and Turing showed that theorem proving is equivalent to solving the halting problem. So a simple measure of intelligence might be to count the number of programs that can be decided. But where does that get us?

Re: AW: [agi] I Can't Be In Two Places At Once.

2008-10-11 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, Sorry if my response was somehow harsh or inappropriate, it really wasn't intended as such. Your contributions to the list are valued. These last few weeks have been rather tough for me in my entrepreneurial role

Re: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?

2008-10-07 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how do you explain the fact that many of today's top financially successful companies rely on closed-source software? A recent example is Google's search engine, which remains closed source. Nobody paid Google for

Re: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?

2008-10-07 Thread Russell Wallace
A good idea and a euro will get you a cup of coffee. Whoever said you need to protect ideas is just shilly-shallying you. Ideas have no market value; anyone capable of taking them up, already has more ideas of his own than time to implement them. Don't take my word for it, look around you; do you

Re: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?

2008-10-07 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was trying to find a way so we can collaborate on one project, but people don't seem to like the virtual credit idea. No, no we don't :-) Even if I go opensource, the number of significant contributors may still be

Re: [agi] universal logical form for natural language

2008-09-27 Thread Russell Wallace
Given that Cyc has accomplished far more in the logical encoding of common sense than any other project, starting with OpenCyc and building from there would seem to suggest itself as the obvious course of action. Am I missing something? On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:02 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL

Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

2008-09-22 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, if intelligence is in large part a systems phenomenon, that has to do with the interconnection of reasonably-intelligent components in a reasonably-intelligent way (as I have argued in many prior

Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

2008-09-20 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So perhaps someone can explain why we need formal knowledge representations to reason in AI. Because the biggest open sub problem right now is dealing with procedural, as opposed to merely declarative or reflexive,

Re: [agi] Artificial humor

2008-09-10 Thread Russell Wallace
The most plausible explanation I've heard is that humor evolved as a social weapon for use by a group of low status individuals against a high status individual. This explains why laughter is involuntarily contagious, why it mostly occurs in conversation, why children like watching Tom and Jerry

Re: [agi] How Would You Design a Play Machine?

2008-08-26 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The be-all and end-all here though, I presume is similarity. Is it a logic-al concept? Finding similarities - rough likenesses as opposed to rational, precise, logicomathematical commonalities - is actually, I would argue,

Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge

2008-07-03 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless, generalities among different instances of complex systems have been identified, see for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants To be sure, but there are also plenty of complex systems

Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge

2008-07-01 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My scepticism comes mostly from my personal observation that each complex systems scientist I come across tends to know about one breed of complex system, and have a great deal to say about that breed, but when I come

Re: [agi] WHAT SORT OF HARDWARE $33K AND $850K BUYS TODAY FOR USE IN AGI

2008-06-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. The biggest issue that spoiled my joy of reading Permutation City is that you cannot simulate dynamic systems ( = solve numerically differential equations) out-of-order, you need to know time t to compute time t+1

Re: [agi] Can We Start Somewhere was Approximations of Knowledge

2008-06-27 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unsupervised learning? This could be really good for looking for strange things in blood samples. Now, I routinely order a manual differential white count that requires someone to manually look over the blood cells with a

Re: [agi] Can We Start Somewhere was Approximations of Knowledge

2008-06-27 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just one gotcha [two claimed gotchas snipped] I disagree with your assessment - while I agree present government and society have problems, as I see it history shows that the development of technology in general, and

Re: [agi] Can We Start Somewhere was Approximations of Knowledge

2008-06-26 Thread Russell Wallace
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps we could create a short database (maybe only a dozen or so entries) of sample queries, activities, tasks, etc., that YOU would like to see YOUR future AGIs performing to earn their electricity. The approach I

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
Philosophically, intelligence explosion in the sense being discussed here is akin to ritual magic - the primary fallacy is the attribution to symbols alone of powers they simply do not possess. The argument is that an initially somewhat intelligent program A can generate a more intelligent

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are very inefficient in processing evidence, there is plenty of room at the bottom in this sense alone. Knowledge doesn't come from just feeding the system with data - try to read machine learning textbooks to a chimp,

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Russell Wallace Indeed, but becoming more efficient at processing evidence is something that requires being embedded in the environment to which the evidence pertains. Why

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it can just work with a static corpus. When you need to figure out efficient learning, you only need to know a little about the overall structure of your data (which can be described by a reasonably small number of

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Russell Wallace Why do you think that? All the evidence is to the contrary - the examples we have of figuring out efficient learning, from evolution to childhood play to formal education

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are only evolution-built animals, which is a very limited repertoir of intelligences. You are saying that if no apple tastes like a banana, therefore no fruit tastes like a banana, even banana. I'm saying if no

Re: [agi] Equivalent of the bulletin for atomic scientists or CRN for AI?

2008-06-23 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, it can be proven. It requires an extended argument to do so properly, which I won't attempt here. Fair enough, I'd be interested to see your attempted proof if you ever get it written up.

Re: [agi] More Info Please

2008-05-26 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding the best language for AGI development, most here know that I'm using Java in Texai. For skill acquisition, my strategy is to have Texai acquire a skill by composing a Java program to perform the learned skill. I

Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy

2008-05-18 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't it be better to provide a super-wiki that could be selected to ONLY display the professional content if that was what was wanted? How about a cookie on everyone's computer that could select out porn,

Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI

2008-05-11 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm starting to mod qemu (it is not a straightforward process) to add capabilities. So if I understand correctly, you're proposing to sandbox candidate programs by running them in their own virtual PC, with their own

Re: Newcomb's Paradox (was Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers)

2008-05-10 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A test of understanding is if one can give a correct *explanation* for any and all of the possible outputs that it (the thing to understand) produces. Unfortunately, explanation is just as ambiguous a word as understanding,

Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI

2008-05-10 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 8:38 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) A system similar to automatic programming that takes descriptions in a formal language given from the outside and potentially malicious sources and generates a program from them. The language would be sufficient to

Re: [agi] Self-maintaining Architecture first for AI

2008-05-10 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:10 PM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It depends on the system you are designing on. I think you can easily create as many types of sand box as you want in programming language E (1) for example. If the principle of least authority (2) is embedded in the

Re: Newcomb's Paradox (was Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI Dangers)

2008-05-08 Thread Russell Wallace
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to get into a quibble fest, but understanding is not necessarily constrained to prediction. Indeed, understanding is a fuzzy word that means lots of different things in different contexts. In the context of

Re: [agi] Language learning, basic patterns, qualia

2008-05-05 Thread Russell Wallace
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we imagine a brain scanner with perfect resolution of space and time then we get every information of the brain including the phenomenon of qualia. But we will not be able to understand it. That's an empirical

Re: [agi] Language learning, basic patterns, qualia

2008-05-05 Thread Russell Wallace
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Armchair reasoning is a bad word. I think it's a rather good one ^.^ It is not an empirical question. It is a question what answers we can get from science in principle. Therefore it is a philosophical question.

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here, I think, is a more detailed start to what you're talking about: our different ways of perceiving and thinking about the world. Okay... Yes all this is absolutely central to solving AGI. What have I left out? An

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I claim that we can and do think in each of the 16 modes implied by the above (and others as well). That is certainly true... I think the key to AI is not so much to figure how to operate in any given one of

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will take a third position and point out that there is no real distinction between these two categories, or at least if there is you are doing it wrong. One of the amusing and fruitless patterns of behavior in the

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the more traditional classification is D = symbolic, S = pattern recognition/motor, or D = high level, S = low level. The D-then-S approach has been popular not because it is biologically plausible, but because

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By modeling symbolic knowledge in a neural network. I realize it is horribly inefficient, but at least we have a working model to start from. Inefficient is reasonable, but how do you propose to do it at all?

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deliberative reasoning can be expressed as processing performed by an inference circuit, a network that propagates activation and calculates the result using logic gates. Particular deliberative algorithms can be

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Understanding can be as simple as matching terms in two documents, or something more complex, such as matching a video clip to a text or audio description. However, there is an incentive to develop sophisticated

Re: [agi] Deliberative vs Spatial intelligence

2008-04-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is why you can't learn to multiply numbers in your head like a calculator (or maybe it's possible with sufficient understanding of learning dynamics, but was never implemented...). You unfortunately don't have

  1   2   3   4   >