On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 06:58:30PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> However, I do think he ended up making a good point about AIXItl, which is
> that an AIXItl will probably be a lot worse at modeling other AIXItl's, than
> a human is at modeling other humans. This suggests that AIXItl's playing
> coo
>
> > The nature of neuroscience research doesn't really differentiate
> between the two at present. In order to understand WHAT a brain part
> does, we have to understand HOW it, and all structures connected to it
> function. We need to understand the inputs and the outputs, and that's
> all
Jonathan Standley wrote:
> Dedicated purpose hardware provides task specific performance orders of
> magnitude higher than that of a general purpose CPU. And task-specific
> hardware need not be inordinately expensive. Look at graphics and
> sound boards as an example of this.
> There is no rea
> I take a quite non-mainstream approach to AI, and more generally to
computer
> science as a whole. For one, I am not at all interested in the
CPU-centric
> paradigm that permeates the computer industry.
>
I admire 'thinking outside the box'.
> Dedicated purpose hardware provides task specific
Ed Helfin wrote:
> "It's been some time
>since I looked at this, but I believe my conclusion was that it wasn't all
>that reliable, I.e. low % accuracy for correct POS identification?, etc. I
>don't know if this gets you where you want to go, but it might be worth
>looking at."
I've looked at a
Brad Wyble wrote:
> The fact that it is complicated does not mean it cannot be replicated in a
>different substrate (and like Ben, I think it would be a misapplication of effort to
>try).
>
[quote left in orrigional form]
Yep,
Tell that to the brain uploading crowd. ;)
> > I don't care _HO
> Higher-order function representations are not robust in the sense that
> neural representations probably are: they aren't redundant at all, one
> error will totally change the meaning. They're not brainlike in any
> sense. But maybe (if my hypothesis is right) they provide a great
> foundatio
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > I like to distinguish two kinds of specialized mechanisms:
> >
> > 1) those that are autonomous
> >
> > 2) those that build specialized functionality on a foundation of
> > general-intelligence-oriented structures and dynamics
> >
> > The AI field, so far, has focused mai
>
> Not exactly. It isn't that I think we should give up on AGI, but rather that
> we should be consciously planning for it to take several decades to get
> there. We should still tackle the problems in front of us, instead of giving
> up on real AI work altogether. But we need to get past the ide
> > I believe that the precision with which digital computers can do things,
> > will allow intelligence to be implemented more simply on them
> than in the
> > brain. This precision allows entirely different structures and
> dynamics to
> > be utilized, in digital AGI systems as opposed to brain
>
> [META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own
> standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and
> ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
I think we're suffering from emacs issues, I'm using elm.
>
> Iff the brain is not unique in its c
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> I like to distinguish two kinds of specialized mechanisms:
>
> 1) those that are autonomous
>
> 2) those that build specialized functionality on a foundation of
> general-intelligence-oriented structures and dynamics
>
> The AI field, so far, has focused mainly on Type 1. But
[META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own
standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and
ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
Brad Wyble wrote:
> The situation for understanding a single neuron is somewhat disastrous.
...
> I'm just
Brad/Ben/all,
I think Ben's point about not trying to emulate biological brains with
computers is quite important.
The medium they are working with (living cells, computer chips are
very different). Effective brains emerge out of an interplay between
the fundamental substrate and the connect
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Brad Wyble wrote:
> . . .
> Incorrect. The cortex has genetically pre-programmed systems.
> It cannot be said that is a matrix loaded with software from
> subcortical structures..
> . . .
Yes, but there is a very interesting experiment with rewiring
brains of young ferrets s
Eliezer,
Allowing goals to change in a coupled way with thoughts memories, is not
simply "adding entropy"
-- Ben
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> >>
> >>I always thought that the biggest problem with the AIXI model is that it
> >>assumes that something in the environment is evaluating the AI
> and gi
>
>
> Brad Wyble wrote, replying to Alan Grimes:
> > I'm just trying to give you a taste of the sophistications that
> > are relevant to brain function and cannot be glossed over.
> >
>
> I know you were replying to Alan not me, but I'll make a comment anyway ;)
>
> The unstable nature of neur
> Say I'm designing an AGI architecture (which I am btw, but it is
irrelevant
> to this discussion :) and I want to preprocess audio data so that speech
is
> already parsed by the time it enters the AI's cognitive modules. All I
need
> to do is obtain a preexisting natural language parser program
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I always thought that the biggest problem with the AIXI model is that it
assumes that something in the environment is evaluating the AI and giving
it rewards, so the easiest way for the AI to obtain its rewards would be
to coerce or subvert the evaluator rather than to accompl
Brad Wyble wrote, replying to Alan Grimes:
> I'm just trying to give you a taste of the sophistications that
> are relevant to brain function and cannot be glossed over.
>
I know you were replying to Alan not me, but I'll make a comment anyway ;)
The unstable nature of neuroscience knowledge is
Wei Dai wrote:
> > "Important", because I strongly suspect Hofstadterian superrationality
> > is a *lot* more ubiquitous among transhumans than among us...
>
> It's my understanding that Hofstadterian superrationality is not generally
> accepted within the game theory research community as a vali
> Do you see another option for simplification?
I am not starting from a foundational concept of "brain emulation", so I'm
not really faced with the problem of simplifying the brain.
> Maybe. Maybe not. To be honest, I think most people in this field
> have a bad
> habit of using "general intell
> The thing that gives me the most confidence in you Ben is that
> you made it to round 2 and you're still swinging. You've
> personally learned the hard lessons of AGI design
Well, some of them ;) I'm sure there are plenty of hard lessons ahead!!
-- ben
> and its
> pitfalls that most
>
> Brad Wyble wrote:
> > > Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
> > > ways than the brain, it seems...
>
> > > The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple processing
> >> pattern and then repeating it millions of times.
>
>
> > Alan, I strongly suggest
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> "Important", because I strongly suspect Hofstadterian superrationality
> is a *lot* more ubiquitous among transhumans than among us...
It's my understanding that Hofstadterian superrationality is not generally
accepted within the game theory research community as a
> OTOH, at least Novamente has enough internal complexity to reach
> territory that hasn't already been explored by classical AI research. I
> don't expect it to "wake up", but I expect it will be a lot more
> productive than those "One True Simple Formula For Intelligence"-type
> projects.
Ye
> Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your familiarity with neuroscience
before making such claims in the future. I'm not sure what simplified model
of the neuron you are using, but be assured that there are many layers of
complexity of function within even a simple neuron, let alone in network
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> However, I don't agree with your quantitative estimate that an AGI has to
be
> orders of magnitude bigger than any software project ever attempted.
>
> I agree that many people underestimate the problem, but I think you
> overestimate the problem. And mis-estimate it. I thin
Brad Wyble wrote:
> > Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
> > ways than the brain, it seems...
> > The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple processing
>> pattern and then repeating it millions of times.
> Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your fa
>
>
> Well, we invented our own specialized database system (in effect) but not
> our own network protocol.
>
> In each case, it's a tough decision whether to reuse or reimplement. The
> right choice always comes down to the nasty little details...
>
> The biggest Ai waste of time has probabl
Eliezer,
I think the best thing to do, if you wanted to monetize a
pattern-recognizing AGI but didn't want to start a "real business" yourself,
would be to hire a single business development person and a single "computer
scientist consultant" and have them help you set up partnership deals with
e
To make a long story short, in 1999 Webmind Inc. foolishly changed its
business model to Internet information management rather than financial
prediction. This business direction led the company to dissolution, and
after it dissolved the CEO (who was also an investor) "took" the financial
predic
Well, we invented our own specialized database system (in effect) but not
our own network protocol.
In each case, it's a tough decision whether to reuse or reimplement. The
right choice always comes down to the nasty little details...
The biggest Ai waste of time has probably been implementing
Brad Wyble wrote:
I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "Human Equivalent" because I think we
are very far from understanding what that phrase even means. We don't
yet know the relevant computational "units" of brain function. It's
not just spikes, it's not just EEG rhythms. I understand we'll nev
> The brain is actually fantasticly simple...
>
> It is nothing compared with the core of a linux operating system
> (kernel+glibc+gcc).
>
> Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
> ways than the brain, it seems...
>
> The brain is very RISCy... using a relativel
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> And I'm a huge advocate of the "integrative" approach.
> My feeling is that maybe half of the ingredients of
> an AGI are things that were created for other (usually
> narrow AI) purposes and can be used, not "off the shelf",
> but with only moderate rather than severe modifi
Ben Goertzel wrote:
But of course, none of us *really know*.
Technically, I believe you mean that you *think* none of us really know,
but you don't *know* that none of us really know. To *know* that none of
us really know, you would have to really know.
--
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
>
> Okay, hypothetical question... and yes, it's really hypothetical... if you
> had a true AGI, say with very powerful pattern-recognition intelligence
> but perhaps not with much in the way of natural human interaction yet,
> what would be the simplest and least effortful way to make money wi
Okay, hypothetical question... and yes, it's really hypothetical... if you
had a true AGI, say with very powerful pattern-recognition intelligence
but perhaps not with much in the way of natural human interaction yet,
what would be the simplest and least effortful way to make money with it?
St
I agree with your qualitative point that a computationally efficient
intelligence has got to consist of a combination of specialized systems
(operating tightly coupled togetherin a common framework, and with many
commonalities and overlaps).
However, I don't agree with your quantitative estimate
> From recent comments here I can see there are still a lot of people out
> there who think that building an AGI is a relatively modest-size
> project, and the key to success is simply uncovering some new insight
> or technique that has been overlooked thus far.
I would agree with that though th
Yeah,
I don't think your statement is true...
And
I'm a huge advocate of the "integrative" approach. My feeling is
that maybe half of the ingredients of an AGI are things that were created
for other (usually narrow AI) purposes and can be used, not "off the shelf", but
with only moder
Billy, I agree that AGI is a complicated architecture of
hundreds of separarate software solutions. But all of these solutions have
utility in other software environments and progress is being made by tens of
thousands of programmers each working on improving some little software function
f
>From recent comments here I can see there are still a lot of people out
there who think that building an AGI is a relatively modest-size project,
and the key to success is simply uncovering some new insight or technique
that has been overlooked thus far. IMHO this is partly a matter of necessary
o
>
> I used the assumptions of Hans Moravec to arrive at Human Equivalent
> Computer processing power:
>
> http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/
>
> Of course as we get closer to AGI then the error delta becomes smaller. I
> am comfortable with the name for now and will adjust the metric as more
> inf
I used the assumptions of Hans Moravec to arrive at Human Equivalent
Computer processing power:
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/
Of course as we get closer to AGI then the error delta becomes smaller. I
am comfortable with the name for now and will adjust the metric as more
info becomes available
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:48, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
> A completely unknown genius at the University of Outer Kirgizia could
> band together with his grad students and create an AGI in 5 years,
> then release it on the shocked world.
Ack! I thought this was a secret!
Curses, foiled again...
-
>
> Brad writes, "Might it not be a more accurate measure to chart mobo+CPU com=
> bo prices?"
>
>
> Maybe. If you wanted to research and post this data I'm sure it would be =
> helpful to have.
Check out www.pricewatch.com. They have a search engine which ranks products by
vendors. Usin
Hmmm... I think the AGI problem is way too
hard for an "amateur programmer" to solve.
But
there are a lot of professionals out there too. A completely unknown
genius at the University of Outer Kirgizia could band together with his grad
students and create an AGI in 5 years, then releas
Brad writes, "Might it
not be a more accurate measure to chart mobo+CPU combo prices?"
Maybe. If you wanted to research and post this
data I'm sure it would be helpful to have.
On the other hand, memory is getting cheaper faster than
cpu's, and printed circuit board design and fabri
>
> I would like to contribute new SPEC CINT 2000 results as they are posted
> to the SPEC benchmark list by semiconductor manufacturers. I expect
> to post perhaps 10 times per year with this news. This is the source data
> for my Human Equivalent Computing spreadsheet and regression line.
I'm
I would like to contribute new SPEC CINT 2000 results as they are posted
to the SPEC benchmark list by semiconductor manufacturers. I expect
to post perhaps 10 times per year with this news. This is the source data
for my Human Equivalent Computing spreadsheet and regression line.
If Kurzweil an
Might it not be a more accurate measure to chart mobo+CPU combo prices? If you look
at sale bundles from companies, there's extra variance in the data from price wars and
the like.
-Brad
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2D73C.D0E0D3C0
> Con
It's
not totally on-focus for the list, but, a monthly post on the topic certainly
won't hurt. It will be interesting to see just how cheap computers do
become over the next couple years! That $399 computer has a faster
processor than any of my 8 machines, i believe !!
--
Ben
---
Unless Ben thinks it would not be appropriate for this
list, I would like to start a "doubling time" watcher monthly posting of retail
computer prices for purposes of establishing a historical record so that
questions of doubling time can be grounded in current data.
My choice of category
55 matches
Mail list logo
