Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Mark, I cannot hit everything now, so at least one part: Are you *absolutely positive* that real pain and real feelings aren't an emergent phenomenon of sufficiently complicated and complex feedback loops? Are you *really sure* that a sufficiently sophisticated AGI won't experience pain? Except some truths found in the world of math, I'm not *absolutely positive* about anything ;-), but I don't see why it should, and when running on computers we currently have, I don't see how it could.. Note that some people suffer from rare disorders that prevent them from the sensation of pain (e.g. congenital insensitivity to pain). Some of them suffer from slight mental retardation, but not all. Their brains are pretty complex systems demonstrating general intelligence without the pain sensation. In some of those cases, the pain is killed by increased production of endorphins in the brain, and in other cases the pain info doesn't even make it to the brain because of malfunctioning nerve cells which are responsible for transmitting the pain signals (caused by genetic mutations). Particular feelings (as we know it) require certain sensors and chemistry. Sophisticated logical structures (at least in our bodies) are not enough for actual feelings. For example, to feel pleasure, you also need things like serotonin, acetylcholine, noradrenaline, glutamate, enkephalins and endorphins. Worlds of real feelings and logic are loosely coupled. Regards, Jiri Jelinek On 5/23/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGIs (at least those that could run on current computers) cannot really get excited about anything. It's like when you represent the pain intensity with a number. No matter how high the number goes, it doesn't really hurt. Real feelings - that's the key difference between us and them and the reason why they cannot figure out on their own that they would rather do something else than what they were asked to do. So what's the difference in your hardware that makes you have real pain and real feelings? Are you *absolutely positive* that real pain and real feelings aren't an emergent phenomenon of sufficiently complicated and complex feedback loops? Are you *really sure* that a sufficiently sophisticated AGI won't experience pain? I think that I can guarantee (as in, I'd be willing to bet a pretty large sum of money) that a sufficiently sophisticated AGI will act as if it experiences pain . . . . and if it acts that way, maybe we should just assume that it is true. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Re: There is no definition of intelligence
That quote made my evening! Thanks :) On 5/22/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best definition of intelligence comes from (of all people) Hugh Loebner: It's like pornography -- I can't define it exactly, but I like it when I see it. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- -Joel Unless you try to do something beyond what you have mastered, you will never grow. -C.R. Lawton - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Josh I think that people have this notion that because emotions are Josh so unignorable and compelling subjectively, that they must be Josh complex. In fact the body's contribution, in an information Josh theoretic sense, is tiny -- I'm sure I way overestimate it with Josh the 1%. Emotions are also, IMO and also according to some existing literature, essentially preprogrammed in the genome. See wife with another man, run jealousy routine. Hear unexpected loud noise, go into preprogrammed 7 point startle routine already visible in newborns. etc. Evolution builds you to make decisions. But you need guidance so the decisions you make tend to actually favor its ends. You get essentially a two part computation, where your decision making circuitry gets preprogrammed inputs about what it should maximize and what tenor it should take. On matters close to their ends (of propagating), the genes take control to make sure you don't deviate from the program. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Note that some people suffer from rare disorders that prevent them from the sensation of pain (e.g. congenital insensitivity to pain). the pain info doesn't even make it to the brain because of malfunctioning nerve cells which are responsible for transmitting the pain signals (caused by genetic mutations). This is equivalent to their lacking the input (the register that says your current pain level is 17) not the ability to feel pain if the register was connected (and therefore says nothing about their brain or their intelligence). In some of those cases, the pain is killed by increased production of endorphins in the brain, In these cases, the pain is reduced but still felt . . . . but again this is equivalent to being register driven -- the nerves say the pain level is 17, the endorphins alter the register down to 5. Particular feelings (as we know it) require certain sensors and chemistry. I would agree that particular sensations require certain sensors but chemistry is an implementation detail that IMO could be replaced with something else. Sophisticated logical structures (at least in our bodies) are not enough for actual feelings. For example, to feel pleasure, you also need things like serotonin, acetylcholine, noradrenaline, glutamate, enkephalins and endorphins. Worlds of real feelings and logic are loosely coupled. OK. So our particular physical implementation of our mental computation uses chemicals for global environment settings and logic (a very detailed and localized operation) uses neurons (yet, nonetheless, is affected by the global environment settings/chemicals). I don't see your point unless you're arguing that there is something special about using chemicals for global environment settings rather than some other method (in which case I would ask What is that something special and why is it special?). Mark - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] NARS: definition of intelligence
I recommend my publisher, MIT Press. They agreed to bring my book out reasonably ($40 list if I recall for the hardcover); then came with a paperback a year later that listed, I forget exactly, maybe $26. And both versions were immediately discounted from there by Amazon and BN, if I recall the paperback sells for $22. I was also recommended to them by an author who told me they are known for keeping books in print for long periods of time. Pei Shane, Well, I actually considered Lulu and similar publishers, Pei though as the last option. It is much easier to publish with Pei them, but given the nature of NARS, such a publisher will make Pei the book even more likely to be classified as by a crackpot. :( Pei I continued to look for a publisher with tough peer-review Pei procedure, even after the manuscript had been rejected by more Pei than a dozen of them. Though the price excludes most of Pei individual buyers, it may be more likely for a research library Pei to buy a $190 book from Springer than a $25 book from Lulu, given Pei the topic. Pei Pei Pei On 5/24/07, Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pei, Yes, the book is the best source for most of the topics. Sorry for the absurd price, which I have no way to influence. It's $190. Somebody is making a lot of money on each copy and I'm sure it's not you. To get a 400 page hard cover published at lulu.com is more like $25. Shane This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; Pei - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email Pei To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: Pei http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Jiri Note that some people suffer from rare Jiri disorders that prevent them from the sensation of pain Jiri (e.g. congenital insensitivity to pain). What that tells you is that the sensation you feel is genetically programmed. Break the program, you break (or change) the sensation. Run the intact program, you feel the sensation. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] NARS: definition of intelligence
MIT Press was among the first publishers I contacted. The editor said they are not interested in the topic --- the manuscript didn't even get a review. :( Yes, their price is much more reasonable. Pei On 5/24/07, Eric Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend my publisher, MIT Press. They agreed to bring my book out reasonably ($40 list if I recall for the hardcover); then came with a paperback a year later that listed, I forget exactly, maybe $26. And both versions were immediately discounted from there by Amazon and BN, if I recall the paperback sells for $22. I was also recommended to them by an author who told me they are known for keeping books in print for long periods of time. Pei Shane, Well, I actually considered Lulu and similar publishers, Pei though as the last option. It is much easier to publish with Pei them, but given the nature of NARS, such a publisher will make Pei the book even more likely to be classified as by a crackpot. :( Pei I continued to look for a publisher with tough peer-review Pei procedure, even after the manuscript had been rejected by more Pei than a dozen of them. Though the price excludes most of Pei individual buyers, it may be more likely for a research library Pei to buy a $190 book from Springer than a $25 book from Lulu, given Pei the topic. Pei Pei Pei On 5/24/07, Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pei, Yes, the book is the best source for most of the topics. Sorry for the absurd price, which I have no way to influence. It's $190. Somebody is making a lot of money on each copy and I'm sure it's not you. To get a 400 page hard cover published at lulu.com is more like $25. Shane - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
RE: [agi] Write a doctoral dissertation, trigger a Singularity
Different people have different ways of communicating. Many Murray posts are sprinkled with annoyances but then they do have some intelligence and wisdom. They remind me of a W. C. Fields like way of speaking with some Snake Oil salesmanship. Actual Snake Oil BTW can be good for certain things but fake Snake Oil is fake, hence the reputation. More generally speaking I have found from my experience that some of the worst communicators have the most to say and some of the best communicators, the least. Not to say Murray is a bad communicator, but we have grown accustomed to marginalizing people who break the mold thus minimizing the variances of personalities. Part of this is due to a franchised-like educational system that has existed for several decades. Our personality pool is diminishing due to efficiency rewardsmanship. Also things like dialects, language variations, cultural variations, etc. are evening out, we are becoming an optimized, homogenized society. Will AGI's follow the same trend and have minimal personality variations and maximal text-book style efficiency of communication? Sometimes breaking the mold of expressing oneself can have maximal effect of conveying an idea or ideas. I'm reminded of once taking a class where the instructor spoke very fast on purpose like an auctioneer. Some students immediately freaked because it was abnormal but the theory was explained and it did work as intended where there was a very high transfer rate of information and rapid two-way communication. Computers, esp. AGI's could experiment intentionally with different twists on language perhaps finding new and better ways of communicating. John Personally, I find many of his posts highly entertaining... If your sense of humor differs, you can always use the DEL key ;-) -- Ben G On 5/20/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is Murray allowed to remain on this mailing list, anyway? As a warning to others? The others don't appear to be taking the hint. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Write a doctoral dissertation, trigger a Singularity
Some people are thrown by unusual ways of communicating, some are not. Murray is drawing pretty consistent ratings/opinions (in terms of the validity of his content) so I don't think that it is his communications style that is the problem. Personally, I judge content value on some vague formula involving communication size, correct and new content, incorrect content, and how easily I can tell the latter two apart. Murray's posts have *very* little intelligence and wisdom particularly when compared the the amount of just plain incorrect content. Thus, he has negligible content value for me. On the other hand, since I tend not to freak -- he certainly does have some humor values (and there but for the grace . . . ) - Original Message - From: John G. Rose To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:56 AM Subject: RE: [agi] Write a doctoral dissertation, trigger a Singularity Different people have different ways of communicating. Many Murray posts are sprinkled with annoyances but then they do have some intelligence and wisdom. They remind me of a W. C. Fields like way of speaking with some Snake Oil salesmanship. Actual Snake Oil BTW can be good for certain things but fake Snake Oil is fake, hence the reputation. More generally speaking I have found from my experience that some of the worst communicators have the most to say and some of the best communicators, the least. Not to say Murray is a bad communicator, but we have grown accustomed to marginalizing people who break the mold thus minimizing the variances of personalities. Part of this is due to a franchised-like educational system that has existed for several decades. Our personality pool is diminishing due to efficiency rewardsmanship. Also things like dialects, language variations, cultural variations, etc. are evening out, we are becoming an optimized, homogenized society. Will AGI's follow the same trend and have minimal personality variations and maximal text-book style efficiency of communication? Sometimes breaking the mold of expressing oneself can have maximal effect of conveying an idea or ideas. I'm reminded of once taking a class where the instructor spoke very fast on purpose like an auctioneer. Some students immediately freaked because it was abnormal but the theory was explained and it did work as intended where there was a very high transfer rate of information and rapid two-way communication. Computers, esp. AGI's could experiment intentionally with different twists on language perhaps finding new and better ways of communicating. John Personally, I find many of his posts highly entertaining... If your sense of humor differs, you can always use the DEL key ;-) -- Ben G On 5/20/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is Murray allowed to remain on this mailing list, anyway? As a warning to others? The others don't appear to be taking the hint. -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
RE: [agi] Write a doctoral dissertation, trigger a Singularity
He definitely has a great vocabulary you have to admit and he is a good showman. Also his critiques of others writings is interesting and humorous as well. As far as the technical validity of his AI project I don't know because I'm still struggling with the ASCII diagrams J John From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Some people are thrown by unusual ways of communicating, some are not. Murray is drawing pretty consistent ratings/opinions (in terms of the validity of his content) so I don't think that it is his communications style that is the problem. Personally, I judge content value on some vague formula involving communication size, correct and new content, incorrect content, and how easily I can tell the latter two apart. Murray's posts have *very* little intelligence and wisdom particularly when compared the the amount of just plain incorrect content. Thus, he has negligible content value for me. On the other hand, since I tend not to freak -- he certainly does have some humor values (and there but for the grace . . . ) - Original Message - From: John G. Rose mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Different people have different ways of communicating. Many Murray posts are sprinkled with annoyances but then they do have some intelligence and wisdom. They remind me of a W. C. Fields like way of speaking with some Snake Oil salesmanship. Actual Snake Oil BTW can be good for certain things but fake Snake Oil is fake, hence the reputation. More generally speaking I have found from my experience that some of the worst communicators have the most to say and some of the best communicators, the least. Not to say Murray is a bad communicator, but we have grown accustomed to marginalizing people who break the mold thus minimizing the variances of personalities. Part of this is due to a franchised-like educational system that has existed for several decades. Our personality pool is diminishing due to efficiency rewardsmanship. Also things like dialects, language variations, cultural variations, etc. are evening out, we are becoming an optimized, homogenized society. Will AGI's follow the same trend and have minimal personality variations and maximal text-book style efficiency of communication? Sometimes breaking the mold of expressing oneself can have maximal effect of conveying an idea or ideas. I'm reminded of once taking a class where the instructor spoke very fast on purpose like an auctioneer. Some students immediately freaked because it was abnormal but the theory was explained and it did work as intended where there was a very high transfer rate of information and rapid two-way communication. Computers, esp. AGI's could experiment intentionally with different twists on language perhaps finding new and better ways of communicating. John Personally, I find many of his posts highly entertaining... If your sense of humor differs, you can always use the DEL key ;-) -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] Opensource Business Model
It seems that AGI is going to require collaboration on a scale larger than usual startups, so I'm thinking of a new business model as follows: 1. form a group of members with equal rights 2. let members contribute code / algorithms / architectures 3. members vote on the worth of the contribution, company shares are awarded to the contributor accordingly 4. forking of branches is allowed (to allow for different AGI theories) 5. source code is open, but download is commercial 6. pricing and other business choices will be set via motioning and voting 7. a president may be elected to do administrative tasks and coordination What's special about this is that we put emphasis on code as well as more intangible things like algorithms and architectures. An AGI project initially should not be focused on incremental code-level changes. I'm wondering how many people would be interested in such a setup? If Ben wants he can open part of Navamente this way too... YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model
I think it's important to have core technical decisions made up front, before a group is gathered; there are things fundamental enough that they can't be decided by committee. I think it's equally important to have core business decisions made up front, because there are aspects of the business side that are also fundamental enough that they can't be decided by committee: Will participants be paid, during the course of the project, market rates, or enough to get by on, or minimal subsistence, or nothing? Will there be further payment coming later, and if so in what form (stock options etc?) and how much? Where will the money come from? What will the product do that people will pay for it? How will it be the case that they can't get what they want without paying for this product? How much money is likely to come in? What sort of order of magnitude of market numbers and amount each customer will be willing and able to pay are we looking at? Etc. This is not a criticism of your suggestion - for all I know, maybe you have answers to these lined up already - but a note of some things that need to be clarified. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
On 5/25/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sophisticated logical structures (at least in our bodies) are not enough for actual feelings. For example, to feel pleasure, you also need things like serotonin, acetylcholine, noradrenaline, glutamate, enkephalins and endorphins. Worlds of real feelings and logic are loosely coupled. OK. So our particular physical implementation of our mental computation uses chemicals for global environment settings and logic (a very detailed and localized operation) uses neurons (yet, nonetheless, is affected by the global environment settings/chemicals). I don't see your point unless you're arguing that there is something special about using chemicals for global environment settings rather than some other method (in which case I would ask What is that something special and why is it special?). You possibly already know this and are simplifying for the sake of simplicity, but chemicals are not simply global environmental settings. Chemicals/hormones/peptides etc. are spatial concentration gradients across the entire brain, which are much more difficult to emulate in software then a singular concetration value. Add to this the fact that some of these chemicals inhibit and promote others and you get horrendously complex reaction diffusion systems. -- -Joel Unless you try to do something beyond what you have mastered, you will never grow. -C.R. Lawton - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
