Re: [agi] Google as a strong AI
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:31:14PM -0500, Dennis Gorelik wrote: Eugen, 1) Google uses relatively simple algorithms. But it does a lot of data mining (because of volume). This is pure semantics. Let's agree to disagree. 2) Over 99% of intelligence of any human being came from other people (society). No. Society doesn't help me see and walk. I can still function if the rest of the humanity would disappear into thin air. Since I don't assume you're trolling, your model of what general AI is pretty wack. Google does the same. 3) Machine vision is irrelevant to strong AI. Sorry, but this is rubbish. AI has been attained when a robot can navigate in cluttered surroundings, and can solve simple tasks. (Which is another of places where neither Google nor LISP are going to be of any help). Blind people can be very intelligent without any vision at all. Over 99% humans doesn't construct semantic image in the way different from what Google does. Sure, whatever. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp80mXTf4RzR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [agi] RE: Lojban and AI
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:37:16AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we cannot learn some messy alien language quickly then it IMO definitely does not mean we are too dumb to learn to think. There are people who have exceptional problem solving skills, yet learning another language is a real challenge for them. The general part of general AI refers to a small amount of cognitive deficits. Whereas the current state of AI refers to some very few, isolated capabilities which collapse into nothing when you make one step in problem space. Current AI is wasteland of absence, with some very few spikes here and there. No generalisation. No learning. That's the state of the art. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgplqOmHyoXHj.pgp Description: PGP signature
[agi] Extended deadline for Call for Team Leader (fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:08:15 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Extended deadline for Call for Team Leader X-Mailer: JsvMail 5.5 (Shuriken Pro3) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sorry if you received multiple copies of this document. We would like to announce the deadline has been extended from May 31 to June 30.) Laboratory Head and Unit Leader Positions in the Area of Creating the Brain The RIKEN Brain Science Institute (BSI), Japan's largest international neuroscience institute, is seeking outstanding applicants for several fulltime laboratory head and unit leader positions to develop its interdisciplinary research area of Creating the Brain. This area comprises a Computational Neuroscience Group that will focus on developing computational theories that elucidate brain functions and mechanisms, and a Brain-Style Computing Group that will aim towards establishing new brain-style information technologies that utilize computational theories modeling brain function. The two groups will work in close collaboration, including joint research projects where beneficial. The research topics of the new laboratories and units may include, for example, computational neuroscience, brain-style robotics, neuro-linguistics, neuromorphic engineering and mathematical neuroscience. Applicants are encouraged to submit unique and creative research proposals that fit within this research context. New laboratory heads will be provided generous subsidies to organize teams of around 6 researchers and technical staff. Units will also be provided subsidies to build teams of around 3 members, and can be promoted to full laboratory status based on successful review. Employment contracts are renewed annually though full support will be provided for the initial 5 years, after which renewal will depend on the results of a progress review conducted by an international review committee. Attractive remuneration packages will be available for suitably qualified and experienced candidates with a record of achievement. A benefits package including health, pension, and subsidies for housing and relocation expenses, is also provided. Applicants living outside Japan are highly encouraged to apply. Successful candidates will be able to develop and direct research plans that match the research objectives of the Creating the Brain area, as well as possess a strong desire for interdisciplinary research work. Excellent leadership, interpersonal, communication and team-building skills are essential, in addition to a strong capacity for working in multicultural environments. More information about the institute can be obtained at http://www.brain.riken.jp . Inquiries can be directed to the e-mail address below. Applicants should send, fax or e-mail 1) research interests and project proposal for work at BSI (max 2000 words), 2) a full curriculum vitae, 3) publication list, 4) a statement highlighting main accomplishments, and 5) names and addresses of three references to the address below. Search Committee 22 RIKEN Brain Science Institute 2-1 Hirosawa Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan FAX: +81-48-462-4796 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Closing date: June 30, 2005 Shun-ichi Amari Director, RIKEN Brain Science Institute Laboratory for Mathematical Neuroscience Hirosawa 2-1, Wako-shi, Saitama 351-0198, Japan +81-48-467-9669 fax +81-48-467-9687 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brain.riken.jp/labs/mns/ http://www.brain.riken.jp/english/b_rear/b0_rear.html - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpI1tgo47sAZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re[2]: [agi] Google as a strong AI
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Dennis Gorelik wrote: From my point of view CYC in on the same level of intelligence as MS Word. Well, probably MS Word is even more intelligent. At least MS Word works and produce nice and intelligent results (not super-intelligent though). Does CYC have any practical use at all? Speaking with my own opinion, and not that of my employer Cycorp, I would say that the Cyc approach to AI at a meta level is the same as that taken by other individuals and groups creating an AI. The approach is to identify the hard AI problem first and solve it, then move on to the rest of the required behaviors. In the mid-1980's Doug Lenat identified commonsense knowledge as the hard AI problem, that once solved would enable otherwise brittle domain-specific expert systems to work together robustly and be easily extendible. Cyc's commonsense knowledge is organized into an ontology suitable for symbolically representing the full range of human thoughts. Cyc's current behavior is fact entry and question answering, with additional web based tools for rule creation and knowledge base browsing. The recent release of OpenCyc 0.9 contains three times as many facts as the prior release. A new product, ResearchCyc, is available for academic/commercial research (without a fee), that contains even more content (e.g. the lexicon) and the full set of tools. Presently the greatest practical use of Cyc in my opinion is it's ontology, which may be applied to organize concepts and relations in any application. We have provided specialized ontology exports to government entities for a few years, and have recently published the entire OpenCyc ontology in OWL (the Web Ontology Language) format on our web site. Our government sponsors have provisions for Cyc applications to be tested this year with user organizations, so that will be a test of practical use. Beyond question answering, a wider range of intelligent behavior is possible. My own ambition for example, is to enable Cyc to be curious, to take the initiative, to seek required knowledge and improve its own behavior using a hierarchical goal-oriented command structure. Dennis, I have toured your web site and have the following points about features that Cyc has that you might have to eventually incorporate into your own architecture: 1. Distinction between individuals (CityOfAtlantaGA) and types of individuals (USCity) 2. Type taxonomy of concepts so that specific types have one or more supertypes (including a taxonomy of relationships) 3. Context. This is the ability to group assertions that have shared assumptions, and to exclude wrong contexts when answering questions 4. Meta assertions, in which a concept in a relationship is itself a relationship between other concepts 5. First order rules - every bat has two wings, in which quantified variables concisely represent what would otherwise be a large number of ground facts 6. Complex objects, notably events and situations. Cyc treats these according to the philosophy of Donald Davidson, all actions are rich events that entail various actors (e.g. a robbery event has a robbed entity even if you are only told about the robber). Cyc has a rich vocabulary of actor roles for thousands of situation and event types. 6. Truth maintenance. This is Cyc's ability to automatically retract all the associated facts when a concept is removed from the knowledge base 7. Lexicon. This the association of natural language (mostly English) words and multi-word strings with concepts, and in the case of event and situation concepts the lexicon contains verb frames (e.g. how are the sentence subject and object related?) 8. Inference. Forwards deductive inference automatically asserts new derived facts when certain antecedent facts are asserted (using marked forwards-firing implication rules). Backwards deductive inference uses rule back-chaining to answer queries when the ground facts cannot be simply looked-up. There are numerous special cases to optimize. For example many relationships are transitive (greaterThan). 8a. Temporal inference - the ability to reason about time intervals, time points (e.g. What World War II movies starred John Wayne?) 8b. Modal inference - represent and answer questions about assertions with modal logical operators, e.g. John ought to get enough sleep. 8c. Abduction - when directed, hypothesize the best answers to queries Cheers. -Steve -- === Stephen L. Reed phone: 512.342.4036 Cycorp, Suite 100 fax: 512.342.4040 3721 Executive Center Drive email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, TX 78731 web: http://www.cyc.com download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org === --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
Re: Re[2]: [agi] LISP as a Strong AI development tool
Hi. I don't see any practical use of Start systems. Do you? Yes I do - to answer questions and retrieve information. It's just a shot at a better google and you do see a use for it. Second reference doesn't work. Works for me, perhaps you need to update your browser. - lk --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Google as a strong AI
Ben Goertzel wrote: Cyc, SOAR and Novamente are all closer to strong AI than Google, since they can carry out a greater variety of intelligence-like functions. Last I checked, Google is used by 100 million people daily, while, to the best of my knowledge, neither Cyc nor SOAR have seenmore than two or three applications outside of the "Blocks-world", while your Novamente project, under your own admission, is underrather tight financial straights at the moment, so much so that you've had to start asking for donations to have the spare time to do some "pure AGI" work... (Don't you think a 60%-complete human-level intelligence should be capable of doingSOMETHING somone would pay good money for?) If Cyc, SOAR, or Novamente posses even a fraction of the "variety of intelligence-like functions" that you seem to think they do, then where are their promised killer-apps? Eugen Leitl wrote: To my best knowledge (which is not much) Google currently doesn't utilizeany advanced algorithms which could (however tenuously) be termed AI. If SHRDLU, ELIZA, or any of the various silly little programs Hofstadterhas ever written receive the title of "AI", whydo you insist on begrudging Google the title? Paul Fidika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Google as a strong AI
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:18:31 -0600, Paul Fidika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last I checked, Google is used by 100 million people daily, while, to the best of my knowledge, neither Cyc nor SOAR have seen more than two or three applications outside of the Blocks-world, while your Novamente project, under your own admission, is under rather tight financial straights at the moment, so much so that you've had to start asking for donations to have the spare time to do some pure AGI work... Windows 98 is probably used by nearly as many people as google. But I don't think that that is good evidence that Windows is intelligent. I seem to remember seeing a demonstration once where Lenat asked Cyc to give examples of people who were happy, and it returned pictures of children riding bicycles for the first time or something similar (perhaps Stephen can correct me if I'm a bit off). That is probably a bit better than Google could do. As far as I know, much of Google's functionality was based upon counting the number of links leading to a page and using that a measure of its importance. (Don't you think a 60%-complete human-level intelligence should be capable of doing SOMETHING somone would pay good money for?) If Cyc, SOAR, or Novamente posses even a fraction of the variety of intelligence-like functions that you seem to think they do, then where are their promised killer-apps? A person's mind is probably a fairly complicated system. Lots of pieces depend on other pieces and lots of experience. It seems like even a small damage to some portion of it could greatly impare someone's intellectual capacities. Studies of brain damage seems to largely confirm this intuition. As I understand it, none of the authors of these projects claim to be anywhere near complete, so I don't think it fair to expect them to yield very humanlike results yet. Eugen Leitl wrote: To my best knowledge (which is not much) Google currently doesn't utilize any advanced algorithms which could (however tenuously) be termed AI. If SHRDLU, ELIZA, or any of the various silly little programs Hofstadter has ever written receive the title of AI, why do you insist on begrudging Google the title? I think the disagreement was over whether Google could be called Strong AI. As in, on the path to human equivalence. This is a rather ambitious title, and none of those programs claim to deserve it. Josh --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Google as a strong AI
I agree with the posters who say that Google is not strong AI. But it is amazingly useful because it, along with the web, forms a huge content-addressable memory. That's an important part of human brains. I think of google as my second brain. It can't think, but it is a wonderful complement to our own memories. Cheers, Bill --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
