On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it has, in fact, been tried before. It has, in fact, always failed.
Your comments about the quality of Ben's approach are noted. Maybe you're
right. But, it's not germane to my argument which is that those parts of
Dr. Matthias Heger wrote:
Brad Pausen wrote The question I'm raising in this thread is more one of
priorities and allocation of scarce resources. Engineers and scientists
comprise only about 1% of the world's population. Is human-level NLU
worth the resources it has consumed, and will
Brad,
Your post describes your position *very* well, thanks.
But, it does not describe *how* or *why* your AI system might achieve domain
expertise any faster/better/cheaper than other narrow-AI systems (NLU
capable, embodied, or otherwise) on its way to achieving networked-AGI. The
list would
A few points...
1)
Closely associating embodiment with GOFAI is just flat-out historically
wrong. GOFAI refers to a specific class of approaches to AI that wer
pursued a few decades ago, which were not centered on embodiment as a key
concept or aspect.
2)
Embodiment based approaches to AGI
Ben,
V. interesting and helpful to get this pretty clearly stated general position.
However:
To put it simply, once an AGI can understand human language we can teach it
stuff.
you don't give any prognostic view about the acquisition of language. Mine is -
in your dreams. Arguably, most
Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making
these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more
seriously the implications for their own field
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100
For those who do not have a New Scientist
But Richard,
1)
none of us are **trying** to predict highly specific properties of the state
of an AGI at a certain point in time, based on the AGIs micro-level
configuration
2)
we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to
**engineer** systems ... arguing that certain
I think we're at the stage where a team of a couple dozen could do it in
5-10 years
I repeat - this is outrageous. You don't have the slightest evidence of
progress - you [the collective you] haven't solved a single problem of
general intelligence - a single mode of generalising - so you
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I did not say the physics was unknown. I said that it must exist. The
physics is already known.Empirically and theoretically. It's just not
recognised in-situ and by the appropriate people. It's an implication of
And you
can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab coat.
Maybe not a lab coat... but how about my trusty wizard's hat??? ;-)
http://i34.tinypic.com/14lmqg0.jpg
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's
Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this
theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in
physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you
can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab coat.
Maybe not a lab coat... but how about my trusty wizard's hat??? ;-)
http://i34.tinypic.com/14lmqg0.jpg
Don't you know that only clown suit interacts
I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool
stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ...
however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced
each other ;-) ...
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL
Good points. I would like to add a further point:
Human language is a sequence of words which is used to transfer patterns of
one brain into another brain.
When we have an AGI which understands and speaks language, then for the
first time there would be an exchange of patterns between an
Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool
stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ... however
when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced each other ;-)
...
Ben,
His argument (like mine), is that AGI is
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these
claims,
You're a physicist?
He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying
an infinite system, rather than one of large
Nice!
As someone who knows a thing or two, though, I'd like to point out
that the undecidability of one thing from another thing depends on the
choice of logic. For example, everything else being equal, if we state
the basic rules of the system in both first-order logic and in ZF set
theory, far
Excellent. I want one! Maybe they should be on sale at the next
conference...there's a marketing edge for ya.
If I have to be as wrong as Vladimir says I'll need the right clothes.
:-)
cheers
colin
Ben Goertzel wrote:
And you
can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab
The problem of the emergent behavior already arises within a chess program
which
visits millions of chess positions within a second.
I think the problem of the emergent behavior equals the fine tuning problem
which I have already mentioned:
We will know, that the main architecture of our AGI
Matthias,
You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this
certainly not universal, but v. common here).
If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a
fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: find a
new way for
Matthias (cont),
Alternatively, if you'd like *the* creative ( somewhat mathematical)
problem de nos jours - how about designing a bail-out fund/ mechanism for
either the US or the world, that will actually work? No show-stopper for
your AGI? [How would you apply logic here, Abram?]
Dr. Matthias Heger wrote:
*Ben G wrote*
**
Well, for the purpose of creating the first human-level AGI, it seems
important **to** wire in humanlike bias about space and time ... this
will greatly ease the task of teaching the system to use our language
and communicate with us effectively...
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
I have heard the argument for point 2 before, in the book by Pinker,
How the Mind Works. It is the inverse-optics problem: physics can
predict what image
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Matthias (cont),
Alternatively, if you'd like *the* creative ( somewhat mathematical)
problem de nos jours - how about designing a bail-out fund/ mechanism for
either the US or the world, that will actually work? No
Mike,
by definition a creative/emergent problem is one where you have to bring
about a given effect by finding radically new kinds of objects that move or
relate in radically new kinds of ways - to produce that effect. By
definition, you *do not know which domain is appropriate to solving
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I feel that an AI with quantum level biases would be less general. It would
be drastically handicapped when dealing with the middle level, which is
where most of living is centered. Certainly an AGI should have modules
Mike Tintner wrote:
Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ...
it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is
impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say
neither of us convinced each other ;-) ...
Ben,
His argument (like mine),
Ben,
I am frankly flabberghasted by your response. I have given concrete example
after example of creative, domain-crossing problems, where obviously there is
no domain or frame that can be applied to solving the problem (as does
Kauffman) - and at no point do you engage with any of them - or
On the contrary,it is *you* who repeatedly resort to essentially
*reference to authority* arguments - saying read my book, my paper etc
etc - and what basically amounts to the tired line I have the proof, I
just don't have the time to write it in the margin
No. I do not claim to have
Hi all,
In preparation for an upcoming (invitation-only, not-organized-by-me)
workshop on Evaluation and Metrics for Human-Level AI systems, I
concatenated a number of papers on the evaluation of AGI systems into a
single PDF file (in which the readings are listed alphabetically in order of
file
Charles,
Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm...
Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric
system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms.
Yep.
I.e., choices. This is clearly impossible. To me this
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One way of going about it would be to let each person create their own
instance, which would have access to the global body of facts but
would be somewhat separate. This would prevent people from
contaminating the global
Hi all,
I need some advice as to open or closed source for my AGI project.
This is a very difficult choice as there are pros and cons on each
side.
The main reason why opensource is bad is that we cannot protect
innovative ideas from being copied by others. This may be a
disincentive for
Ben: very useful...Peter Burton
Peter G Burton PhD
http://homepage.mac.com/blinkcentral
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
intl 61 (0) 400 194 333
On Monday, October 06, 2008, at 06:57PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi all,
In preparation for an upcoming (invitation-only, not-organized-by-me)
Maybe all we need is just a simple interface for entering facts...
YKY
I still don't understand why you think a simple interface for entering facts
is so important... Cyc has a great UI for entering facts, and used it to
enter millions of them already ... how far did it get them toward
So the key question is whether there will be enough opensource
contributors with innovative ideas and expertise in AGI...
YKY
It's a gamble ... and I don't yet know if my gamble with OpenCog will pay
off!!
A problem is that to recruit a lot of quality volunteers, you'll first need
to
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why you think a simple interface for entering facts
is so important... Cyc has a great UI for entering facts, and used it to
enter millions of them already ... how far did it get them toward AGI???
Abram Demski wrote:
Charles,
Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm...
Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric
system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms.
Yep.
I.e., choices. This is
38 matches
Mail list logo
