Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:20:54PM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
When the first AGI is built, its first actions will be to make sure that
nobody is trying to build a dangerous, unfriendly AGI.
Yes, OK, granted, self-preservation is a reasonable character trait.
After
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:20:10PM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Second, You mention the 3-body problem in Newtonian mechanics. Although
I did not use it as such in the paper, this is my poster child of a
partial complex system. I often cite the case of planetary
On 04/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linas Vepstas wrote:
Um, why, exactly, are you assuming that the first one will be freindly?
The desire for self-preservation, by e.g. rooting out and exterminating
all (potentially unfreindly) competing AGI, would not be what I'd
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 04/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linas Vepstas wrote:
Um, why, exactly, are you assuming that the first one will be freindly?
The desire for self-preservation, by e.g. rooting out and exterminating
all (potentially unfreindly) competing AGI, would
Another AGI project -some similarities to Ben's. (I was not however able to
play with my Wubble - perhaps you'll have better luck). Comments?
http://eksl.isi.edu/cgi-bin/page.cgi?page=project-jean.html
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change
On 04/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to exactly how, I don't know, but since the AGI is, by assumption,
peaceful, friendly and non-violent, it will do it in a peaceful,
friendly and non-violent manner.
This seems very vague. I would suggest that if there is no clear
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 09:37:58 pm, Mike Tintner wrote:
I disagree also re how much has been done. I don't think AGI - correct me -
has solved a single creative problem - e.g. creativity - unprogrammed
adaptivity - drawing analogies - visual object recognition - NLP - concepts -
I mean that ethics or friendliness is an algorithmically complex function,
like our legal system. It can't be simplified.
The determination of whether a given action is friendly or ethical or not is
certainly complicated but the base principles are actually pretty darn simple.
However, I
Matt Mahoney pontificated:
The probability distribution of language
coming out through the mouth is the same as the distribution coming in
through
the ears.
Wrong.
My goal is not to compress text but to be able to compute its probability
distribution. That problem is AI-hard.
Wrong
Response to Mike Tintners Thu 10/4/2007 7:36 AM post:
I skimmed LGIST: Learning Generalized Image Schemas for Transfer Thrust D
Architecture Report, by Carole Beal and Paul Cohen at the USC Information
Sciences Institute. It was one of the PDFs listed on the web link you
sent me (at
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 04/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to exactly how, I don't know, but since the AGI is, by assumption,
peaceful, friendly and non-violent, it will do it in a peaceful,
friendly and non-violent manner.
This seems very vague. I would suggest that if
In my complex systems paper I make extensive use of John Horton Conway's
little cellular automaton called Game of Life (GoL), but two people have
made objections to this on the grounds that GoL can be used to implement
a Turing Machine, and is therefore an example of me not knowing what I
am
On Thursday 04 October 2007 10:42:46 am, Mike Tintner wrote:
... I find
no general sense of the need for a major paradigm shift. It should be
obvious that a successful AGI will transform and revolutionize existing
computational paradigms ...
I find it difficult to imagine a development
To me this seems like elevating that status of nanotech to magic.
Even given RSI and the ability of the AGI to manufacture new computing
resources it doesn't seem clear to me how this would enable it to
prevent other AGIs from also reaching RSI capability. Presumably
lesser techniques means black
Edward P: II skimmed “LGIST: Learning Generalized Image Schemas for Transfer
Thrust D Architecture Report”, by Carole Beal and Paul Cohen at the USC
Information Sciences Institute. It was one of the PDFs listed on the web
link you sent me (at
On 10/4/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me this seems like elevating that status of nanotech to magic.
Even given RSI and the ability of the AGI to manufacture new computing
resources it doesn't seem clear to me how this would enable it to
prevent other AGIs from also reaching RSI
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:06:11 am, Richard Loosemore wrote:
As far as we can tell, GoL is an example of that class of system in
which we simply never will be able to produce a theory in which we
plug in the RULES of GoL, and get out a list of all the patterns in GoL
that are
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:50:21 am, Bob Mottram wrote:
To me this seems like elevating that status of nanotech to magic.
Even given RSI and the ability of the AGI to manufacture new computing
resources it doesn't seem clear to me how this would enable it to
prevent other AGIs from also
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:52:01 am, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Analogy-making can be reformulated as other problems, so even if it's
not named this way it's still associated with many approaches to
learning. Recalling relevant knowledge is about the same thing as
analogy-making, and in
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that ethics or friendliness is an algorithmically complex function,
like our legal system. It can't be simplified.
The determination of whether a given action is friendly or ethical or not is
certainly complicated but the base principles
On Thursday 04 October 2007 10:56:59 am, Edward W. Porter wrote:
You appear to know more on the subject of current analogy drawing research
than me. So could you please explain to me what are the major current
problems people are having in trying figure out how to draw analogies
using a
In response to the below post from Mike Tintner of 10/4/2007 12:33 PM:
You talk about the Cohen article I quoted as perhaps leading to a major
paradigm shift, but actually much of its central thrust is similar to
ideas that have been around for decades. Cohens gists are surprisingly
similar to
On Thursday 04 October 2007 01:57:22 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
You talk about the Cohen article I quoted as perhaps leading to a major
paradigm shift, but actually much of its central thrust is similar to
ideas that have been around for decades. Cohens gists are surprisingly
similar to
Josh,
(Talking of breaking the small hardware mindset, thank god for the
company with the largest hardware mindset -- or at least the largest
physical embodiment of one-- Google. Without them I wouldnt have known
what FARG meant, and would have had to either (1) read your valuable
response
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:06:11 am, Richard Loosemore wrote:
As far as we can tell, GoL is an example of that class of system in
which we simply never will be able to produce a theory in which we
plug in the RULES of GoL, and get out a list of all the patterns
In response to Pei Wangs post of 10/4/2007 3:13 PM
Thanks for giving us a pointer so such inside info.
Googling for the article you listed I found
1. The Logic of Categorization, by PeiWang at
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.categorization.pdf FOR FREE; and
2. A logic of
If permissible, I to would be interested in the JoETAI version of your
paper.
Thanks,
Mike Ramsey
On 10/4/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to Pei Wang's post of 10/4/2007 3:13 PM
Thanks for giving us a pointer so such inside info.
Googling for the article you
Edward You talk about the Cohen article I quoted as perhaps leading to a
major
paradigm shift, but actually much of its central thrust is similar to
ideas that have been around for decades. Cohens gists are surprisingly
similar to the scripts Schank was talking about circa 1980.
Josh: And
Well, the two papers have similar central ideas, though the second one
is much longer and also reflects Hofstadter's opinions --- so it is
not free. ;-)
I'll send you (and the others who have asked) a softcopy in private email.
Pei
On 10/4/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney pontificated:
The probability distribution of language
coming out through the mouth is the same as the distribution coming in
through
the ears.
Wrong.
Could you explain how they differ and why it would matter? Remember I am
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do it then. You can start with interesting=cyclic.
should GoL gliders be considered cyclic?
I personally think the candidate-AGI that finds a glider to be similar
to a local state of cells from N iterations earlier to be particularly
On 10/4/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:52:01 am, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Analogy-making can be reformulated as other problems, so even if it's
not named this way it's still associated with many approaches to
learning. Recalling relevant
Let me answer with an anecdote. I was just in the shop playing with some small
robot motors and I needed a punch to remove a pin holding a gearbox onto one
of them. I didn't have a purpose-made punch, so I cast around in the toolbox
until Aha! an object close enough to use. (It was a small
On 10/4/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can't build a system that learns as fast as a 1-year-old just now. Which is
our most likely next step: (a) A system that does learn like a 1-year-old, or
(b) a system that can learn 1000 times as fast as an adult?
Following Moore's
Josh,
Again a good reply. So it appears the problem is they don't have good
automatic learning of semantics.
But, of course, that's vertually impossible to do in small systems except,
perhaps, about trivial domains. It becomes much easier in tera-machines.
So if my interpretation of what you
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Thursday 04
In order for your statement to be true, everybody would have to have exactly
the same word distribution.
And if you're talking about written text, what are you talking about mouths
and ears?
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent:
Mike,
I think the concept of image schema is a very good one.
Among my many computer drawings are ones showing multiple simplified
drawings of different, but at different semantic levels, similar events
for the purpose of helping me to understand how a system can naturally
extract appropriate
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do it then. You can start with interesting=cyclic.
should GoL gliders be considered cyclic?
I personally think the candidate-AGI that finds a glider to be similar
to a local state of cells from N iterations earlier
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
It has to do with the argument in my paper.
Richard Loosemore
On
My mistake --- the previous email was meant to be private, though I
was too tired to remember that I shouldn't use reply. :-(
Anyway, I don't mind to share this paper, but please don't post it on the Web.
Pei
On 10/4/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike,
Attached is the paper (for your
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll repeat again since you don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm
saying -- The determination of whether a given action is friendly or
ethical or not is certainly complicated but the base principles are actually
pretty darn simple.
Then state
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order for your statement to be true, everybody would have to have exactly
the same word distribution.
I meant the true (unknown) distribution, not the distribution as modeled by
the speaker and listener. But you are right that this difference makes
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
predicts all the interesting creatures given only the rules?
The question of getting something
44 matches
Mail list logo
