MS: I'm solving this by using an algorithm + exceptions routines.
You're saying there are predictable patterns to human and animal behaviour
in their activities, (like sports and investing) - and in this instance how
humans change tactics?
What empirical evidence do you have for this, apart
I can't see how this can be true. Let us look at a few things.
Theory of languages. Todos hablnt espanol! Well let us analyse what you
learnt. You learnt about agreement. Spanish nouns are masculine or feminine,
adjectives (usually) come after the noun. If the noun is feminine they end
in a.
On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like the idea of enhancing human intelligence before the
singularity.
What do you class as enhancement? Suppose I am in the Middle East and I am
wearing glasses which can give a 3D data screen. Somebody speaks to me.
Ian, Travis, etc.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2010 22:21, Travis Lenting travlent...@gmail.com wrote:
I think crime has to be made impossible even for an enhanced humans first.
If our enhancement was Internet based it could be turned
The recent Core of AGI exchange has led me IMO to a beautiful conclusion -
to one of the most basic distinctions a real AGI system must make, and also
a simple way of distinguishing between narrow AI and real AGI projects of
any kind.
Consider - you have
a) Dave's square moving across a
What is the equation and solution method providing solution of every
physical problem?
or
Give me the equation of god, and its solution. (lol)
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:02 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Crime has its purpose just like many other unpleasant behaviors. When
The space navigation system is a case in point. I listened to a talk by
Peter Norvig in which he talked about looking at the moton of the heavens in
an empirical way. Let's imagine angels and crystal spheres and see where we
get. He rather decried Newton and the apple. In fact the apple story
Mike,
Alive vs. dead? As I've said before, there is no actual difference. It is
not a qualitative difference that makes something alive or dead. It is a
quantitative difference. They are both controlled by physics. I don't mean
the nice clean physics rules that we approximate things with, I mean
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern*
ways, and *predictably.*
Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork*
ways, and *unbleedingpredictably* .
This
Well, I see that Mike did say normally move... so yes that type of
principle could be used in a more flexible AGI program (although there is
still a question about the use of any presumptions that go into this level
of detail about their reference subjects. I would not use a primary
reference
Yeah. I forgot to mention that robots are not aalive yet could act
indistinguishably from what is alive. The concept of alive is likely
something that requires inductive type reasoning and generalization to
learn. Categorization, similarity analysis, etc could assist in making such
distinctions as
In order to have perceptual/conceptual similarity, it might make sense that
there is distance metric over conceptual spaces mapping (ala Gardenfors or
something like this theory) underlying how the experience of reasoning
through is carried out. This has the advantage of being motivated by
In case anyone missed it... Problems are not AGI. Solutions are. And AGI
is not the right adjective anyway. The correct word is general. In other
words, generally applicable to other problems. I repeat, Mike, you are *
wrong*. Did anyone miss that?
To recap, it has nothing to do with what problem
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner
tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern*
ways, and *predictably.*
Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork*
ways, and *unbleedingpredictably* .
I
What do you class as enhancement?
I'm not talking about shoes making us run faster I'm talking about direct
brain interfacing that significantly increases a persons intelligence that
would allow them to out smart us all for their own good.
The idea of the Singularity is that AGI enhances itself.
Anyone who could suggest making crime impossible is SO far removed from
reality that it is hard to imagine that they function in society.
I cleared this obviously confusing statement up with Matt. What I meant to
say was impossible to get away with in public (in America I guess) because
of mass
I really think using email alone decreases our efficiency, therefore I
suggest we use other methods in conjunction to email to maximize our
interactions. I also realize we have attempted the forum thing to very
little success, but how about this.
Ive created a document that we can all edit, lets
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
But, that's why it is important to force oneself to solve them in such a way
that it IS applicable to AGI. It doesn't mean that you have to choose a
problem that is so hard you can't cheat. It's unnecessary to do that
I also want to mention that I develop solutions to the toy problems with the
real problems in mind. I also fully intend to work my way up to the real
thing by incrementally adding complexity and exploring the problem well at
each level of complexity. As you do this, the flaws in the design will be
Yes I have. But what I found is that real vision is so complex, involving so
many problems that must be solved and studied, that any attempt at general
vision is beyond my current abilities. It would be like expecting a single
person, such as myself, to figure out how to build the h-bomb all by
*nods* So you have tried the full problem, and caught up with the current
state-of-the-art in techniques for it? In that case...
... well, honestly, I still don't think your approach with black squares and
screenshots is going to produce any useful results. But given the above, I
no longer think
Rob,
I just LOVE opaque postings, because they identify people who see things
differently than I do. I'm not sure what you are saying here, so I'll make
some random responses to exhibit my ignorance and elicit more explanation.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:53 AM, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote:
There would be an insidious problem with programming computers to play poker
that in Sid's opinion would raise the Turing test to a higher level.
The problem would not be whether people could figure out if they were up
against a computer. It would be whether the computer could figure out
David Jones wrote:
I also want to mention that I develop solutions to the toy problems with the
real problems in mind. I also fully intend to work my way up to the real
thing by incrementally adding complexity and exploring the problem well at
each level of complexity.
A little research
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 13:21 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote:
MS: I'm solving this by using an algorithm + exceptions routines.
You're saying there are predictable patterns to human and animal behaviour
in their activities, (like sports and investing) - and in this instance how
humans change
Interestingly, the world's best AI poker program *does* work by applying
sophisticated Bayesian probability analysis to social modeling...
http://pokerparadime.com/
-- Ben
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
There would be an insidious problem with
Natural language requires more than the words on the page in the real world.
Of course that didn't work.
Cyc also is trying to store knowledge about a super complicated world in
simplistic forms and also requires more data to get right.
Vision and other sensory interpretaion, on the other hand,
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 16:15 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote:
That's why Michael can't bear to even contemplate a world in which
things
and people behave unpredictably. (And Ben can't bear to contemplate a
stockmarket that is obviously unpredictable).
If he were an artist his instincts would be
28 matches
Mail list logo
