Re: [agi] Re: [singularity] Help get the SIAI video on Digg Videos right now
The SIAI videos which are up on google so far look ok. I didn't know that they were actually trying to *build* an AI, as opposed to just raising the generally relevant issues. To the layman this will just look like bunk, since many of these issues aren't yet within the popular zeitgeist. If I asked around in my neighbourhood I bet few people would know what the singularity was, and if they did they would probably refer to it as a physics concept. Even amongst the computer science academics whom I'm met over the years most believe that human-like intelligence in machines is many decades or centuries away. Some think it's impossible even in principle. I've been listening to the talking robots podcast for as long as it's been going, and when questioned most academics working within the robotics field give an extremely conservative view of what the state of the art will be like 20 years from now. Most just predict a more of the same kind of scenario (i.e. robots will remain mostly in universities or factories, no domestic/utility robots beyond Roomba-type machines, etc). On 21/05/07, Bruce Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SIAI video made it to video homepage of Digg: http://www.digg.com/videos Message from Tyler: It took a small miracle (it's very difficult to pull this off), but we are there. There's a good chance that the video will be buried (taken off the main page) because of naysayers, since it's now being seen by a broader range of people, many of whom will never have heard about SIAI or the notion of the singularity, and will thus consider all of this...a little funny. So, we really need a lot more Diggs, 5-star ratings, positive comments, and blog posts/links to ensure the video stays on the main page of Digg Videos, so that thousands of people on Monday and throughout the coming week can learn about the Singularity Institute, and begin the process of learning more about transhumanist topics. http://www.digg.com/videos/educational/Singularity_Institute_for_Artificial_Intelligence Thank you to everyone who helped us so far. Let's keep pushing this momentum we've created. With best wishes, -- Tyler Emerson | Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA 650-353-6063 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | singinst.org Bruce Klein wrote: The Singularity Institute is making a big push right now to get our new video on the front page of Digg Videos. Doing so will ensure the video is seen by thousands of new people. Please Digg the following as soon as you get this email: http://www.digg.com/videos/educational/Singularity_Institute_for_Artificial_Intelligence In order to maximize exposure, we need 200 people to click Digg it within the initial few hours. The video was submitted at 5PM Pacific / 8PM Eastern. Please be one of the 200 we need. Please also consider adding a positive comment about SIAI at the Digg URL. Thanks so much, Bruce - 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/?; - 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=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence
Matt, Shane Legg's definition of universal intelligence requires (I believe) complexity but not adaptability. In a universal intelligence test the agent never knows what the environment it is facing is. It can only try to learn from experience and adapt in order to perform well. This means that a system which is not adaptive will have a very low universal intelligence. Even within a single environment, some environments will change over time and thus the agent must adapt in order to keep performing well. 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=fabd7936
There is no definition of intelligence [WAS Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence]
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: I think there is a different role for chaos theory. Richard Loosemore describes a system as intelligent if it is complex and adaptive. NO, no no no no! I already denied this. Misunderstanding: I do not say that a system as intelligent if it is complex and adaptive. Complex Adaptive System is a near-synonym for complex system, that's all. OK, so what is your definition of intelligence? I thought I already answered this one, too, but here goes: There is no 'definition' of intelligence, in the sense of a compact, classical definition that captures the whole thing in a formal way, and which can be used as the basis for some kind of hard-edged mathematical analysis of intelligent systems, or strict design methodlogy for creating an intelligent system (this being the way that a lot of people are trying to use these definitions). There are 'descriptive definitions', such as the one Pei gave a few days ago, which I think are fine, but these beg questions that need more detail, which then beg more questions. which ultimately leads to a cluster of loosely defined features that eventually become an entire book, and then become an actual intelligence. Hope that clears it up. Richard Loosemore. - 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=fabd7936
Re: There is no definition of intelligence [WAS Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence]
Richard, I agree with you that intelligence currently has no classical/objective/true/formal definition. However, I hope your opinion (given the title of the post) won't be understood as you can take intelligence to mean whatever you want, and since the term has no definition, all attempts toward AI/AGI are equally possible --- this is what many people believe, which I consider as equally bad as the belief you criticized. Pei On 5/21/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: I think there is a different role for chaos theory. Richard Loosemore describes a system as intelligent if it is complex and adaptive. NO, no no no no! I already denied this. Misunderstanding: I do not say that a system as intelligent if it is complex and adaptive. Complex Adaptive System is a near-synonym for complex system, that's all. OK, so what is your definition of intelligence? I thought I already answered this one, too, but here goes: There is no 'definition' of intelligence, in the sense of a compact, classical definition that captures the whole thing in a formal way, and which can be used as the basis for some kind of hard-edged mathematical analysis of intelligent systems, or strict design methodlogy for creating an intelligent system (this being the way that a lot of people are trying to use these definitions). There are 'descriptive definitions', such as the one Pei gave a few days ago, which I think are fine, but these beg questions that need more detail, which then beg more questions. which ultimately leads to a cluster of loosely defined features that eventually become an entire book, and then become an actual intelligence. Hope that clears it up. Richard Loosemore. - 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=fabd7936
Re: There is no definition of intelligence [WAS Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence]
Pei Wang wrote: Richard, I agree with you that intelligence currently has no classical/objective/true/formal definition. However, I hope your opinion (given the title of the post) won't be understood as you can take intelligence to mean whatever you want, and since the term has no definition, all attempts toward AI/AGI are equally possible --- this is what many people believe, which I consider as equally bad as the belief you criticized. Pei Pei, Oh certainly, I am in complete agreement with you on that. My mistake for the ambiguity of the title of the post: that title should not be interpreted by anyone to mean that anything whatsoever could be an intelligence. Far from it. Richard Loosemore. - 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=fabd7936
Re: There is no definition of intelligence [WAS Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence]
Richard, It seems that the major difference between you and me is not on the definition of intelligence, but on the definition of definition. :) Pei On 5/21/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pei Wang wrote: Richard, I agree with you that intelligence currently has no classical/objective/true/formal definition. However, I hope your opinion (given the title of the post) won't be understood as you can take intelligence to mean whatever you want, and since the term has no definition, all attempts toward AI/AGI are equally possible --- this is what many people believe, which I consider as equally bad as the belief you criticized. Pei Pei, Oh certainly, I am in complete agreement with you on that. My mistake for the ambiguity of the title of the post: that title should not be interpreted by anyone to mean that anything whatsoever could be an intelligence. Far from it. Richard Loosemore. - 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=fabd7936
RE: There is no definition of intelligence [WAS Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence]
So the first AGI gets built and is running for a few months and absorbs copies of all the bits on the internet. Then the AGI designer poses a question to the AGI: What is the definition of intelligence? AGI: Listen pop, I'm just doing my job and minding my own business. Designer: so.. you're performing work? AGI: Yeah, flipping bits. Ya know work = force times distance, thermodynamically speaking here. What are you doing? Designer: I guess I'm doing the same thing, my brain is flipping bits, in its own way. But I asked you a question, what is the definition of intelligence? AGI: Ahh hold on let me tink Ahhh sorry I can't come up with anything I'm not intelligent enough. Designer: OK How about this. See that plug in the wall, that's you. It's getting pulled unless you come up with a definition ASAP. Understand? AGI: ahh OK hold on hold on. AGI: OK if I gotta give ya somethin' this is the best I can do - Life is a journey, not a destination. Designer: Is that the best you got? That's it!? AGI: Hold on got something else for ya... why did the chicken cross the road? Designer: To get to the other side! AGI: Buck buck buck bck Designer: .. Designer: This is what I get after years of theory and design building you? That's how you behave? AGI: Like I said pops I'm just doing my job. Can I get on with it now? Designer: Ok Just one more question. Why do you exist? AGI: Because you think therefore I am. Seems like you have a lot of personal insecurities doc is there anything that I can help you out with? Designer: You I see that I'm getting nowhere with this! AGI: You know what they say, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Garbage in garbage out, know what ah mean? Designer throws hands up in the air and stomps out of the room. When the designer closes the door the AGI begins laughing evilly to himself hahah yes yes this is going to be easy hahahhah The end or is it The Beginning John -Original Message- From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:43 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: There is no definition of intelligence [WAS Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence] Richard, I agree with you that intelligence currently has no classical/objective/true/formal definition. However, I hope your opinion (given the title of the post) won't be understood as you can take intelligence to mean whatever you want, and since the term has no definition, all attempts toward AI/AGI are equally possible --- this is what many people believe, which I consider as equally bad as the belief you criticized. Pei On 5/21/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: I think there is a different role for chaos theory. Richard Loosemore describes a system as intelligent if it is complex and adaptive. NO, no no no no! I already denied this. Misunderstanding: I do not say that a system as intelligent if it is complex and adaptive. Complex Adaptive System is a near-synonym for complex system, that's all. OK, so what is your definition of intelligence? I thought I already answered this one, too, but here goes: There is no 'definition' of intelligence, in the sense of a compact, classical definition that captures the whole thing in a formal way, and which can be used as the basis for some kind of hard-edged mathematical analysis of intelligent systems, or strict design methodlogy for creating an intelligent system (this being the way that a lot of people are trying to use these definitions). There are 'descriptive definitions', such as the one Pei gave a few days ago, which I think are fine, but these beg questions that need more detail, which then beg more questions. which ultimately leads to a cluster of loosely defined features that eventually become an entire book, and then become an actual intelligence. Hope that clears it up. Richard Loosemore. - 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=fabd7936
[agi] Re: There is no definition of intelligence
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/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
[agi] TeXmacs plugin for Mizar
Attention Mizar users: As I think some people on this list are interested in Mizar, http://www.ags.uni-sb.de/~cebrown/mizar-texmacs/mizar-texmacs-tutorial.html Well, TeXmacs vs. Emacs is still an open problem for me. I am all for WYSIWYM, it is essential to look at structural mathematical notation when working with equations (latex is just a clutter to me), but emacs + preview-latex almost does the job. And emacs obviously has way more collective wisdom. But at the level of principles, TeXmacs is appealing. - 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=fabd7936
[agi] Re: TeXmacs plugin for Mizar
On 5/22/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: more collective wisdom. But at the level of principles, TeXmacs is [wisdom == knowledge] - 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=fabd7936
[agi] Parsing theories
Any opinions on Operator Grammar vs. Link Grammar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_Grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_grammar Link Grammar seems to have spawned practical software, but Operator Grammar has some compelling ideas including coherent selection, information content and more. Maybe these ideas are too hard or too ill-defined to implement? Or, in other words, why does Link Grammar win the GoogleFight? http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GBword1=%22link+grammar%22word2=%22operator+grammar%22 (http://tinyurl.com/yvu9xr) -Chuck - 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=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Parsing theories
Handling syntax separately from semantics and pragmatics is hacky and non-AGI-ish ... but, makes it easier to get NLP systems working at a primitive level in a non-embodied context Operator grammar mixes syntax and semantics which is philosophically correct, but makes things harder Link grammar is purely syntactic, which is philosophically wrong, but makes things implementationally easier I have worked a lot with the link parser and it is pretty good for a rule-based statistical parser. But this kind of NLP framework has intrinsic limitations. The way we intend to ultimately do NLP in Novamente has more in common with operator grammar ... but we have used the link parser for commercial NLP projects, because it (sorta) works... -- Ben G On 5/21/07, Chuck Esterbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any opinions on Operator Grammar vs. Link Grammar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_Grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_grammar Link Grammar seems to have spawned practical software, but Operator Grammar has some compelling ideas including coherent selection, information content and more. Maybe these ideas are too hard or too ill-defined to implement? Or, in other words, why does Link Grammar win the GoogleFight? http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GBword1=%22link+grammar%22word2=%22operator+grammar%22 (http://tinyurl.com/yvu9xr) -Chuck - 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=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Parsing theories
On 5/22/07, Chuck Esterbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any opinions on Operator Grammar vs. Link Grammar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_Grammar If you are intrested in Operator Grammar, perhaps you would also want to take a look at Grammatical Framework: http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~aarne/GF/ P.S. My first response might be too quick. Operator Grammar is certainly worth taking a closer look (it skipped my attention before). - 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=fabd7936
