On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
If you want to argue that recursive self improvement is a special case of
learning, then I have no disagreement with the rest of your argument.
But is this really a useful approach to solving AGI? A group of humans
Hi,
My main impression of the AGI-08 forum was one of over-dominance by
singularity-obsessed and COMP thinking, which must have freaked me out a
bit.
This again is completely off-base ;-)
COMP, yes ... Singularity, no. The Singularity was not a theme of AGI-08
and the vast majority of
Hi Colin,
Are there other forums or email lists associated with some of the other AI
communities you mention? I've looked briefly but in vain ... would appreciate
any helpful pointers.
Thanks,
Terren
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Colin Hales [EMAIL
2008/10/14 Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An AI that is twice as smart as a
human can make no more progress than 2 humans.
Spoken like someone who has never worked with engineers. A genius engineer
can outproduce 20 ordinary
Hi Will,
I think humans provide ample evidence that intelligence is not necessarily
correlated with processing power. The genius engineer in my example solves a
given problem with *much less* overall processing than the ordinary engineer,
so in this case intelligence is correlated with some
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An AI that is twice as smart as a
human can make no more progress than 2 humans.
Spoken like someone who has never worked with engineers. A
genius engineer can
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An AI that is twice as smart as a
human can make no more progress than 2 humans.
Spoken like someone who has never worked with engineers. A genius engineer can
outproduce 20 ordinary engineers in the same timeframe.
Do you really
Matt,
Your measure of intelligence seems to be based on not much more than storage
capacity, processing power, I/O, and accumulated knowledge. This has the
advantage of being easily formalizable, but has the disadvantage of missing a
necessary aspect of intelligence.
I have yet to see from
Hi Terren,
I think humans provide ample evidence that intelligence is not necessarily
correlated with processing power. The genius engineer in my example solves a
given problem with *much less* overall processing than the ordinary engineer,
so in this case intelligence is correlated with
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is how I see this exchange...
You proposed a so-called *mathematical* debunking of RSI.
I presented some detailed arguments against this so-called debunking,
pointing out that its mathematical assumptions and its
Colin:
others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual hardware
neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K. 'Thermodynamically
equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion channels', Neural
Computation vol. 19, no. 2, 2007. 327-350.) ...and others ... then things
If you want to argue this way (reasonable), then you need a specific
definition of intelligence. One that allows it to be accurately
measured (and not just in principle). IQ definitely won't serve.
Neither will G. Neither will GPA (if you're discussing a student).
Because of this, while I
An AI that is twice as smart as a human can make no more progress than 2
humans.
Actually I'll argue that we can't make predictions about what a
greater-than-human intelligence would do. Maybe the summed
intelligence of 2 humans would be sufficient to do the work of a
dozen. Maybe
Charles,
I'm not sure it's possible to nail down a measure of intelligence that's going
to satisfy everyone. Presumably, it would be some measure of performance in
problem solving across a wide variety of novel domains in complex (i.e. not
toy) environments.
Obviously among potential agents,
Again, when you say that these neuroscience theories have squashed the
computational theories of mind, it is not clear to me what you mean by the
computational theories of mind. Do you have a more precise definition of
what you mean?
ben g
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are things you can't model with limits of
processing
power/memory which restricts your ability to solve them.
Processing power, storage capacity, and so forth, are all important in the
realization of an AI but I don't see
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason for not connecting consciousness with AGI is a
situation where one can see no mechanism or role for it. That inability
is no proof there is noneand I have both to the point of having a
patent in progress. Yes, I
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
My main impression of the AGI-08 forum was one of over-dominance
by singularity-obsessed and COMP thinking, which must have
freaked me out a bit.
This again is completely off-base ;-)
I also found my feeling about -08 as slightly coloured by first
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
But no matter. Whichever definition you accept, RSI is not a viable path to
AGI. An AI that is twice as smart as a
human can make no more progress than 2 humans.
I can't say I've noticed two dogs being smarter than one dog.
Admittedly, a
Hi YKY,
If your code will be open source lisp, then I have a few points learned from my
experience at Cycorp.
(1) Franz has a very good Common Lisp (Allegro) IDE for Windows and Linux, but
is closed source
(2) Steel Bank Common Lisp is open source, derived from CMU Common Lisp.
Recent SBCL
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
If you want to argue that recursive self improvement
is a special case of
learning, then I have no disagreement with the rest of
your argument.
OK, but you have not yet explained what your theory of consciousness is, nor
what the physical mechanism nor role for consciousness that you propose is
... you've just alluded obscurely to these things. So it's hard to react
except with raised eyebrows and skepticism!!
ben g
On Tue, Oct 14,
I am reminded of this:
http://www.serve.com/bonzai/monty/classics/MissAnneElk
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:14:39 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration
OK, but you have not yet explained what your theory of consciousness is, nor
what
Matt,
But no matter. Whichever definition you accept, RSI is not a viable path to
AGI. An AI that is twice as smart as a human can make no more progress than
2 humans. You don't have automatic self improvement until you have AI that
is billions of times smarter. A team of a few people isn't
Will:There is a reason why lots of the planets biomass has stayed as
bacteria. It does perfectly well like that. It survives.
Too much processing power is a bad thing, it means less for
self-preservation and affecting the world. Balancing them is a tricky
proposition indeed
Interesting thought.
Ben Goertzel wrote:
OK, but you have not yet explained what your theory of consciousness
is, nor what the physical mechanism nor role for consciousness that
you propose is ... you've just alluded obscurely to these things. So
it's hard to react except with raised eyebrows and skepticism!!
Colin
Consc. by nature is subjective ...
Can never prove this in a machine -- or other human beings for that matter
We are underutilizing about 4 Billion + human Cons's on the earth today
What goal -- besides vanity -- is there to simulate this mechanically ??
We need to simulate
Hi Terren,
They are not 'communities' in the sense that you mean. They are labs in
various institutions that work on M/C-consciousness (or pretend to be
doing cog sci, whilst actually doing it :-). All I can do is point you
at the various references in the paper and get you to keep an eye on
doobelow.
Mike Tintner wrote:
Colin:
others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual
hardware neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K.
'Thermodynamically equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion
channels', /Neural Computation/ vol. 19, no.
About self: you don't like Metzinger's neurophilosophy I presume? (Being No
One is a masterwork in my view)
I agree that integrative biology is the way to go for understanding brain
function ... and I was talking to Walter Freeman about his work in the early
90's when we both showed up at the
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Your measure of intelligence seems to be based on not much
more than storage capacity, processing power, I/O, and
accumulated knowledge. This has the advantage of being
easily formalizable, but has the disadvantage of
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Again, when you say that these neuroscience theories have squashed
the computational theories of mind, it is not clear to me what you
mean by the computational theories of mind. Do you have a more
precise definition of what you mean?
I suppose it's a bit ambiguous.
Sure, I know Pylyshyn's work ... and I know very few contemporary AI
scientists who adopt a strong symbol-manipulation-focused view of cognition
like Fodor, Pylyshyn and so forth. That perspective is rather dated by
now...
But when you say
Where computation is meant in the sense of abstract
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Sure, I know Pylyshyn's work ... and I know very few contemporary AI
scientists who adopt a strong symbol-manipulation-focused view of
cognition like Fodor, Pylyshyn and so forth. That perspective is
rather dated by now...
But when you say
Where computation is meant
I still don't really get it, sorry... ;-(
Are you saying
A) that a conscious, human-level AI **can** be implemented on an ordinary
Turing machine, hooked up to a robot body
or
B) A is false
???
If you could clarify this point, I might have an easier time interpreting
your other thoughts?
I
Ben Goertzel wrote:
About self: you don't like Metzinger's neurophilosophy I presume?
(Being No One is a masterwork in my view)
I agree that integrative biology is the way to go for understanding
brain function ... and I was talking to Walter Freeman about his work
in the early 90's when
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I still don't really get it, sorry... ;-(
Are you saying
A) that a conscious, human-level AI **can** be implemented on an
ordinary Turing machine, hooked up to a robot body
or
B) A is false
B)
Yeah that about does it.
Specifically: It will never produce an
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason for not connecting consciousness with AGI is a
situation where one can see no mechanism or role for it. That inability
is no proof there is noneand I have both to the point of having a
38 matches
Mail list logo
