On 6/23/08, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Or it could simply mean that the vast majority of programmers and software
> monkeys are mediocre at best such that the handful of people you will meet
> with deep talent won't constitute a useful sample size. Hell, even Brooks
> suggest
On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Steve Richfield wrote:
Andy,
The use of diminutives is considered rude in many parts of anglo-
culture if the individual does not use it to identify themselves,
though I realize it is common practice in some regions of the US. When
in doubt, use the given for
Andy,
This is a PERFECT post, because it so perfectly illustrates a particular
point of detachment from reality that is common among AGIers. In the real
world we do certain things to achieve a good result, but when we design
politically correct AGIs, we banish the very logic that allows us to
func
Jim Bromer wrote:
Loosemore said,
"It is very important to understand that the paper I wrote was about the
methodology of AGI research, not about specific theories/models/systems
within AGI. It is about the way that we come up with ideas for systems
and the way that we explore those systems,
Abram Demski wrote:
Thanks for the comments. My replies:
It does happen to be the case that I
believe that logic-based methods are mistaken, but I could be wrong about
that, and it could turn out that the best way to build an AGI is with a
completely logic-based AGI, along with just one small
I just realised - how can you really understand what I'm talking about -
without supplementary images/evidence?
So here's simple evidence - look at the following foto - and note that you
can distinguish each individual in it immediately. And you can only do it
imagistically. No maths, no langu
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.
--
Russell:quite a few very smart people
(myself among them) have tried hard to design something that could
enhance its intelligence divorced from the real world, and all such
attempts have failed. Obviously I can't _prove_ the impossibility of this -
in the same way
that I can't prove the impossi
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Loosemore said,
"It is very important to understand that the paper I wrote was about the
methodology of AGI research, not about specific theories/models/systems
within AGI. It is about the way that we come up with ideas for systems
and the way that we explore those systems, not about the conten
--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Kaj Sotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Perform the experiment several times. If, on any of the trials,
> copies are created, then have all of them partake in the next trial as
> well, flipping a new coin and possibly being duplicated again (and
> quickly leading to an expon
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
Vlad,
You seem to be arguing in a logical vacuum in denying the essential nature
of evidence to most real-world problem-solving.
Let's keep it real, bro.
Science - bear in mind science deals with every part of the world - from the
cosmos to the earth to living organisms, animals, humans, so
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Evidence is an indication that depends on the
>> referred event: evidence is there when referred event is there, but
>> evidence is not there
Thanks for the comments. My replies:
> It does happen to be the case that I
> believe that logic-based methods are mistaken, but I could be wrong about
> that, and it could turn out that the best way to build an AGI is with a
> completely logic-based AGI, along with just one small mechanism that
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 edu
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
William Pearson wrote:
While SIAI fills that niche somewhat, it concentrates on the
Intelligence explosion scenario. Is there a sufficient group of
researchers/thinkers with a shared vision of the future of AI coherent
enough to form an organisation? This organisation would discus,
explore and di
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 is t
Since combinatorial search problems are so common to artificial
intelligence, it has obvious applications. If such an algorithm can be
made, it seems like it could be used *everywhere* inside an AGI:
deduction (solve for cases consistent with constraints), induction
(search for the best model), pla
Abram Demski wrote:
To be honest, I am not completely satisfied with my conclusion on the
post you refer to. I'm not so sure now that the fundamental split
between logical/messy methods should occur at the line between perfect
& approximate methods. This is one type of messiness, but one only. I
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>>
2008/6/23 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:50 AM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/6/22 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>
>>> Two questions:
>>> 1) Do you know enough to estimate which scenario is more likely?
>>
>> Well since intelligence
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
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we step back and think about it, we really knew this already. In
> every case where humans, machines or biological systems exhibit
> anything that could be called an intelligence improvement - biological
> evolution, a
Russell:The mistake of trying to reach truth by pure armchair thought was
understandable in ancient Greece. We now know better.So attractive as the
image of a Transcendent Power popping out of a basement may be to us geeks,
it doesn't have anything to do with
reality. Making smarter machines in
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 progr
On 6/23/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 6/22/08, Kaj Sotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/21/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eliezer asked a similar question on SL4. If an agent
> > flips a fair quantum coin and is copied 10 times if it
>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:50 AM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/22 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>> Two questions:
>> 1) Do you know enough to estimate which scenario is more likely?
>
> Well since intelligence explosions haven't happened previously in our
> light c
2008/6/23 Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/22 William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2008/6/22 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Well since intelligence explosions haven't happened previously in our
>> light cone, it can't be a simple physical pattern
>
> Probably the last "intellige
2008/6/22 William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/22 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well since intelligence explosions haven't happened previously in our
> light cone, it can't be a simple physical pattern
Probably the last "intelligence explosion" - a relatively rapid
increase in the
33 matches
Mail list logo
