On Saturday 10 November 2007 16:51, Robin Hanson wrote:
At 02:06 PM 11/10/2007, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Basically, 'traditional' AI people have an almost theological aversion to
the idea that the task of building an AI might involve having to learn
(and
deconstruct!) a vast amount of
Mike Tintner wrote:
Sounds a little confusing. Sounds like you plan to evolve a system
through testing thousands of candidate mechanisms. So one way or
another you too are taking a view - even if it's an evolutionary, I'm
not taking a view view - on, and making a lot of asssumptions about
: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:42 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
It is NOT clear that Novamente documentation is NOT enabling, or could
not be made enabling, with, say, one man year of work. Strong argument
could be made both ways.
I believe
Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:42 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
It is NOT clear that Novamente documentation is NOT enabling, or
could
not be made enabling, with, say, one man year of work
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
I think that there are two basic directions to better the Novamente
architecture:
the one Mark talks about
more integration of MOSES with PLN and RL theory
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:34:51PM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Suppose that in some significant part of Novamente there is a
representation system that uses probability or likelihood numbers to
encode the strength of facts, as in [I like cats](p=0.75). The (p=0.75)
Hi,
No: the real concept of lack of grounding is nothing so simple as the
way you are using the word grounding.
Lack of grounding makes an AGI fall flat on its face and not work.
I can't summarize the grounding literature in one post. (Though, heck,
I have actually tried to do that in
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 2:37 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
Unfortunately what you say below is tangential to my point, which is
what happens when you reach the stage where you cannot allow any more
vagueness
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
No: the real concept of lack of grounding is nothing so simple as the
way you are using the word grounding.
Lack of grounding makes an AGI fall flat on its face and not work.
I can't summarize the grounding literature in one post. (Though,
Richard,
So here I am, looking at this situation, and I see:
AGI system intepretation (implicit in system use of it)
Human programmer intepretation
and I ask myself which one of these is the real interpretation?
It matters, because they do not necessarily match up.
That
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:11, Richard Loosemore wrote:
This is the whole brain emulation approach, I guess (my previous
comments were about evolution of brains rather than neural level
duplication).
Ah, you are right. But this too is an interesting topic. I think that
RL:In order to completely ground the system, you need to let the system
build its own symbols
V. much agree with your whole argument. But - I may well have missed some
vital posts - I have yet to get the slightest inkling of how you yourself
propose to do this.
-
This list is
On Nov 14, 2007 1:36 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RL:In order to completely ground the system, you need to let the system
build its own symbols
Correct. Novamente is designed to be able to build its own symbols.
what is built-in, are mechanisms for building symbols, and for
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:55, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I was really thinking of the data collection problem: we cannot take
one brain and get full information about all those things, down to a
sufficient level of detail. I do not see such a technology even over
the horizon (short of
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:28, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The complaint is not your symbols are not connected to experience.
Everyone and their mother has an AI system that could be connected to
real world input. The simple act of connecting to the real world is
NOT the core problem.
Are
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:28, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The complaint is not your symbols are not connected to experience.
Everyone and their mother has an AI system that could be connected to
real world input. The simple act of connecting to the real world is
NOT the
On Nov 14, 2007 11:58 PM, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we sure? How much of the real world are we able to get into our AGI
models anyway? Bandwidth is limited, much more limited than in humans
and other animals. In fact, it might be the equivalent to worm tech.
To do the
Sounds a little confusing. Sounds like you plan to evolve a system through
testing thousands of candidate mechanisms. So one way or another you too
are taking a view - even if it's an evolutionary, I'm not taking a view
view - on, and making a lot of asssumptions about
-how systems evolve
Mike Tintner wrote:
RL:In order to completely ground the system, you need to let the system
build its own symbols
V. much agree with your whole argument. But - I may well have missed
some vital posts - I have yet to get the slightest inkling of how you
yourself propose to do this.
Well,
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:55, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I was really thinking of the data collection problem: we cannot take
one brain and get full information about all those things, down to a
sufficient level of detail. I do not see such a technology even over
the
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Monday 12 November 2007 22:16, Richard Loosemore wrote:
If anyone were to throw that quantity of resources at the AGI problem
(recruiting all of the planet), heck, I could get it done in about 3
years. ;-)
I have done some research on this topic in the last hour and
]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2007 3:49 PM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
To be honest, Richard, I do wonder whether a sufficiently in-depth
conversation
about AGI between us would result in you changing
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
It is NOT clear that Novamente documentation is NOT enabling, or could
not be made enabling, with, say, one man year of work. Strong argument
could be made both ways.
I believe that Ben would argue that Novamente
.listbox.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2007 3:49 PM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
To be honest, Richard, I do wonder whether a sufficiently in-depth
conversation
about AGI between us would result in you changing your views about
the CSP
For example, what is the equivalent of the activation control (or search)
algorithm in Google sets. They operate over huge data. I bet the
algorithm for calculating their search or activation is relatively simple
(much, much, much less than a PhD theses) and look what they can do. So I
Mike Tintner wrote:
RL:Suppose that in some significant part of Novamente there is a
representation system that uses probability or likelihood numbers to
encode the strength of facts, as in [I like cats](p=0.75). The (p=0.75)
is supposed to express the idea that the statement [I like cats] is
Ben,
Unfortunately what you say below is tangential to my point, which is
what happens when you reach the stage where you cannot allow any more
vagueness or subjective interpretation of the qualifiers, because you
have to force the system to do its own grounding, and hence its own
On Nov 13, 2007 2:37 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
Unfortunately what you say below is tangential to my point, which is
what happens when you reach the stage where you cannot allow any more
vagueness or subjective interpretation of the qualifiers, because you
have to
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:44:58PM -0500, Mark Waser wrote:
So perhaps the AGI question is, what is the difference between
a know-it-all mechano-librarian, and a sentient being?
I wasn't assuming a mechano-librarian. I was assuming a human that could
(and might be trained to) do some
This is the thing that I think is relevent to Robin Hanson's original
question. I think we can build 1+2 is short order, and maybe 3 in a
while longer. But the result of 1+2+3 will almost surely be an
idiot-savant: knows everything about horses, and can talk about them
at length, but, like
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:34:51PM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Suppose that in some significant part of Novamente there is a
representation system that uses probability or likelihood numbers to
encode the strength of facts, as in [I like cats](p=0.75). The (p=0.75)
is supposed to
But has a human, asking Wen out on a date, I don't really know what
Wen likes cats ever really meant. It neither prevents me from talking
to Wen, or from telling my best buddy that ...well, I know, for
instance, that she likes cats...
yes, exactly...
The NLP statement Wen likes cats is
So, vagueness can not only be important
imported, I meant
into an AI system from natural language,
but also propagated around the AI system via inference.
This is NOT one of the trickier things about building probabilistic AGI,
it's really
kind of elementary...
-- Ben G
-
for ten seconds that you've answered *anything*. That's the
*narrow ai* approach.
- Original Message -
From: Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:44
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:11, Richard Loosemore wrote:
This is the whole brain emulation approach, I guess (my previous
comments were about evolution of brains rather than neural level
duplication).
Ah, you are right. But this too is an interesting topic. I think that
the order of
:-) but if I am,
I certainly haven't got to the point where I feel that I can defend it.:-)
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Nov 12
Hi,
Research project 1. How do you find analogies between neural networks,
enzyme kinetics and the formation of galaxies (hint: think Boltzmann)?
That is a question most humans couldn't answer, and is only suitable for
testing an AGI that is already very advanced.
In your opinion. I
can frequently turn huge once you turn your attention to them. Who are you
snowing here?
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
Hi
That's a good simple, starting case. But how do you decide how much
knowledge to disburse? How do you know what is irrelevant? How much do
your answers differ between a small farmer in New Zealand, a rodeo rider in
the West, a veterinarian is Pennsylvania, a child in Washington, a
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
Ed --
Just a quick comment: Mark actually read a bunch of the proprietary,
NDA-required Novamente documents and looked at some source code (3 years
ago, so a lot of progress has happened since then). Richard didn't, so he
On Nov 12, 2007 1:49 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm more interested at this stage in analogies like
-- btw seeking food and seeking understanding
-- between getting an object out of a hole and getting an object out of
a pocket, or a guarded room
Why would one need to
or manipulate the language so content is irrelevant, users apply
tags, fairly simply regurgitation) if you think 2008 is anywhere close to
reasonable.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best
On Nov 12, 2007 2:51 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know at what point you'll be blocked from answering by
confidentiality concerns
I can't say much more than I will do in this email, due to customer
confidentiality concerns
but I'll ask a few questions you hopefully can
On Nov 12, 2007 2:41 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is NOT clear that Novamente documentation is NOT enabling, or could
not be made enabling, with, say, one man year of work. Strong argument
could be made both ways.
I believe that Ben would argue that Novamente
, November 12, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Nov 12, 2007 2:51 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know at what point you'll be blocked from answering by
confidentiality concerns
I can't say much more than I will do in this email, due
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Ed --
Just a quick comment: Mark actually read a bunch of the proprietary,
NDA-required Novamente documents and looked at some source code (3 years
ago, so a lot of progress has happened since then). Richard didn't, so
he doesn't have the same basis of knowledge to
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:19:44AM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote:
as I was driving home I approached a
truck off the side of the road, its driver pulling hard on a bar,
tightening the straps securing the load. Without conscious thought I
moved over in my lane to allow for the possibility that
On Nov 12, 2007 10:34 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can easily imagine that next-years grand challenge, or the one
thereafter, will explicitly require ability to deal with cyclists,
motorcyclists, pedestrians, children and dogs. Exactly how they'd test
this, however, I don't
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:19:44AM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote:
as I was driving home I approached a
truck off the side of the road, its driver pulling hard on a bar,
tightening the straps securing the load. Without conscious thought I
moved over in my lane to allow for
On 11/12/07, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see a human, better give him wide berth. Certainly, the ability to
detect and deal with pedestrians will be required before these things
become street-legal.
Well, I think we'll see robotic vehicles first play a significant role
in war
On 11/12/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007 10:34 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can easily imagine that next-years grand challenge, or the one
thereafter, will explicitly require ability to deal with cyclists,
motorcyclists, pedestrians, children
:49 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
To be honest, Richard, I do wonder whether a sufficiently in-depth
conversation
about AGI between us would result in you changing your views about the CSP
problem in a way that would accept the possibility of Novamente-type
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 02:16:06PM -0500, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Its way out, but not crazy. If humanity or some mechanical legacy of us
ever comes out the other end of the first century after superhuman
intelligence arrives, it or they will be ready to start playing in the
Galactic big
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:56:00PM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Linas Vepstas wrote:
I can easily imagine that next-years grand challenge, or the one
thereafter, will explicitly require ability to deal with cyclists,
motorcyclists, pedestrians, children and dogs. Exactly how they'd test
. . . . :-)which is why I figured I'd run this
out there and see how he reacted.:-)
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Nov 12, 2007 5:02 PM, Mark
I am heavily focussed on my own design at the moment, but when you talk
about the need for 100+ hours of studying detailed NM materials, are you
talking about publicly available documents, or proprietary information?
Proprietary info, much of which may be made public next year, though...
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
To be honest, Richard, I do wonder whether a sufficiently in-depth
conversation
about AGI between us would result in you changing your views about the CSP
problem in a way that would accept the possibility of Novamente-type
solutions.
But, this conversation as I'm
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:49:52PM -0500, Mark Waser wrote:
What I thought you meant was, if a user asked I'm a small farmer in New
Zealand. Tell me about horses then the system would be able to disburse
its relevant knowledge about horses, filtering out the irrelevant stuff.
What
On Monday 12 November 2007 15:56, Richard Loosemore wrote:
You never know what new situation might arise that might be a
problem, and you cannot market a driverless car on the understanding
that IF it starts killing people under particular circumstances, THEN
someone will follow that by adding
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:56:51PM -0500, Mark Waser wrote:
It will happily include irrelevant facts
Which immediately makes it *not* relevant to my point.
Please read my e-mails more carefully before you hop on with ignorant
flames.
I read your emails, and, mixed in with some
of user dissatisfaction.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Nov 12, 2007 6:56 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
fair chunk of
money that 15 years *is* entirely within reason for the scenario you
suggest.
- Original Message -
From: Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:22:37PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Monday 12 November 2007 17:31, Linas Vepstas wrote:
If and when you find a human who is capable of having conversations
about horses with small farmers, rodeo riders, vets, children
and biomechanicians, I'll bet that they
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0500, Mark Waser wrote:
There is a big difference between being able to fake something for a
brief period of time and being able to do it correctly. All of your
phrasing clearly indicates that *you* believe that your systems can only
fake it for a
Mark Waser wrote:
Yes, sorry, I'm laboring under a horrible cold and my brain is not all here.
Same here: I'm recovering from it now, but it was a real doozy. (Is
that how you spell doozy?)
Anyhow, this is all just to say that your detailed post and questions
was very thought provoking,
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Monday 12 November 2007 15:56, Richard Loosemore wrote:
You never know what new situation might arise that might be a
problem, and you cannot market a driverless car on the understanding
that IF it starts killing people under particular circumstances, THEN
someone will
On Monday 12 November 2007 19:31, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Yikes, no: my strategy is to piggyback on all that work, not to try
to duplicate it.
Even the Genetic Algorithm people don't (I think) dream of evolution
on that scale.
Yudkowsky recently wrote an email on preservation of the
Edward W. Porter wrote:
I'm sorry. I guess I did misunderstand you.
If you have time I wish you could state the reasons why you find it
lacking as efficiently as has Mark Waser.
Ed Porter
I'll do my best when I respond to Mark's questions/commentary tomorrow.
Briefly, though, the complex
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Monday 12 November 2007 19:31, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Yikes, no: my strategy is to piggyback on all that work, not to try
to duplicate it.
Even the Genetic Algorithm people don't (I think) dream of evolution
on that scale.
Yudkowsky recently wrote an email on
On Monday 12 November 2007 19:48, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Even with everyone on the planet running evolutionary simulations, I
do not believe we could reinvent an intelligent system by brute
force.
Of your message, this part is the most peculiar. Brute force is all that
we have.
- Bryan
On Nov 12, 2007 8:44 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think BenG claimed to be able to build an AGI in 6 months,
but rather something that can fake it for a breif period of time.
I was rising to the defense of that.
No. Ben is honest in his claims and he said that this was
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Monday 12 November 2007 19:48, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Even with everyone on the planet running evolutionary simulations, I
do not believe we could reinvent an intelligent system by brute
force.
Of your message, this part is the most peculiar. Brute force is all that
On Monday 12 November 2007 22:16, Richard Loosemore wrote:
If anyone were to throw that quantity of resources at the AGI problem
(recruiting all of the planet), heck, I could get it done in about 3
years. ;-)
I have done some research on this topic in the last hour and have found
that a
Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 5:29 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
I'm impressed with the certainty of some of the views expressed here,
nothing like I get talking to people actually building robots.
- Jef
On 11/11/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben said -- the possibility of dramatic, rapid, shocking success in
robotics is LOWER than in cognition
That's why I tell people the value of manual labor will not be impacted as
soon by the AGI revolution as the value of mind labor.
But we do not yet have a complete, verifiable theory, let alone a
practical design.
- Jef
To be more accurate, we don't have a practical design that is commonly
accepted in the AGI research community.
I believe that I *do* have a practical design for AGI and I am working hard
toward
Richard,
Even Ben Goertzel, in a recent comment, said something to the effect
that the only good reason to believe that his model is going to function
as advertised is that *when* it is working we will be able to see that
it really does work:
The above paragraph is a distortion of what I
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
Even Ben Goertzel, in a recent comment, said something to the effect
that the only good reason to believe that his model is going to function
as advertised is that *when* it is working we will be able to see that
it really does work:
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
Geortzel claims his planning indicates it is rougly 6 years x 15
excellent, hard-working programmers, or 90 man years to getting his
architecture up an running. I assume that will involve a lot of “hard”
mental work.
By “hard problem” I mean a problem for
Richard,
Thus: if someone wanted volunteers to fly in their brand-new aircraft
design, but all they could do to reassure people that it was going to
work were the intuitions of suitably trained individuals, then most
rational people would refuse to fly - they would want more than
Hi,
The following was my brief reply when someone asked me recently why I
think AGI is coming:
1. New constructive theories and engineering plans on AGI begin to
appear after decades of vacancy on this topic --- AGI won't be
possible until someone begin to try
2. All proposed arguments on the
my inclination has been to see progress as very slow toward an
explicitly-coded AI, and so to guess that the whole brain emulation approach
would succeed first
Why are you not considering a seed/learning AGI?
- Original Message -
From: Robin Hanson
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
At 09:10 AM 11/10/2007, you wrote:
my inclination has been to see
progress as very slow toward an
explicitly-coded AI,
and so to guess that the whole brain emulation approach would succeed
first
Why are you not considering a
seed/learning AGI?
That would count for non-emulation AI, which
Hi Robin. In part it depends on what you mean by fast.
1. Fast - less than 10 years.
I do not believe there are any strong arguments for general-purpose AI being
developed in this timeframe. The argument here is not that it is likely, but
rather that it is *possible*. Some AI researchers,
AGI might turn out to be relatively easy to implement, if right theory
comes along, so there's some chance of building AGI in the nearest
future, while there's NO chance of implementing brain emulation before
all those numerous technical details are tackled, and it can take
really long time, which
At 10:29 AM 11/10/2007, Derek Zahn wrote:
2. Fast - less
than 50 years.
For this timeframe, just dust off Moravec's old computer speed
chart. On such a chart I think we're supposed to be at something
like mouse level right now -- and in fact we have seen supercomputers
beginning to take a shot
On Saturday 10 November 2007 09:29, Derek Zahn wrote:
On such a chart I think we're supposed to be at something like mouse
level right now -- and in fact we have seen supercomputers beginning
to take a shot at simulating mouse-brain-like structures.
Ref?
- Bryan
-
This list is sponsored
On 11/10/07, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 November 2007 09:29, Derek Zahn wrote:
On such a chart I think we're supposed to be at something like mouse
level right now -- and in fact we have seen supercomputers beginning
to take a shot at simulating mouse-brain-like
On Saturday 10 November 2007 10:07, Kaj Sotala wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
The researchers say that although the simulation shared some
similarities with a mouse's mental make-up in terms of nerves and
connections it lacked the structures seen in real mice brains.
*.
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Saturday 10 November 2007 10:07, Kaj Sotala wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
Bryan Bishop: Looks like they were just simulating eight million neurons with
up to 6.3k synapses each. How's that necessarily a mouse simulation, anyway?
It isn't. Nobody said it was necessarily a mouse simulation. I said it was
a simulation of a mouse-brain-like structure. Unfortunately,
On Saturday 10 November 2007 11:31, Derek Zahn wrote:
Unfortunately, not enough is yet known about specific connectivity so
the best that can be done is play with structures of similar scale in
anticipation of further advances.
What signs will tell us that we do know enough about the
On 11/10/07, Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression is that the cognitive performance of mice is vastly superior
to that of current robot cars. I don't see how they could be considered
even remotely comparable. But perhaps I have misjudged. Has anyone
attempted to itemize
I think the media coverage of mouse brain simulation was a little
misleading. What I think they actually achieved was to simulate many
neurons based upon the Izhikevich model on a large computer at a rate
significantly slower than real time. As far as I know there was no
attempt to actually
Robin,
I am an evangelist for the fact that the time for powerful AI could be
here very rapidly if there were reasonable funding for the right people.
There is a small, but increasing number of people who pretty much
understand how to build artificial brains as powerful as that of humans,
not
On 10/11/2007, Jef Allbright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the DARPA Urban Challenge last weekend, the optimism and flush of
rapid growth was palpable, but as I was driving home I approached a
truck off the side of the road, its driver pulling hard on a bar,
tightening the straps securing the
On Saturday 10 November 2007 12:52, Edward W. Porter wrote:
In fact, if the ITRS roadmap projections continue to be met through
What is the ITRS roadmap? Do you have a link?
- Bryan
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please
Robin Hanson wrote:
I've been invited to write an article for an upcoming special issue of
IEEE Spectrum on Singularity, which in this context means rapid and
large social change from human-level or higher artificial
intelligence. I may be among the most enthusiastic authors in that
issue,
On 11/10/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There
is a small, but increasing number of people who pretty much understand how
to build artificial brains as powerful as that of humans, not 100% but
probably at least 90% at an architectual level.
Being 90% certain of where to get on
.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Saturday 10 November 2007 12:52, Edward W. Porter wrote:
In fact, if the ITRS roadmap projections continue to be met through
What is the ITRS roadmap? Do you have a link?
- Bryan
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
