On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote:
Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of
used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while
university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as
things remain
On 11/21/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who don't read Kurzweil's mailing list, here is a link to
an article that describes progress being made in a type of brain/computer
interface that may in the future have the potential of provided a high
bandwidth communication
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Open source robotics may eventually occur, but I think it will require
some common and relatively affordable platforms. It becomes much
easier to usefully share code when you're dealing with the same
hardware (or at least
On Tuesday 30 September 2008, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
Yeah, and I'm designing a voting system of virtual credits for
working collaboratively on the project...
Write a plugin to cvs, svn, git, or some other.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers:
On Saturday 20 September 2008, Trent Waddington wrote:
Hehe, indeed. Although I'm sure Powerset has some nice little
relationship links between words, I'm a little skeptical about the
claim to meaning. I don't mean that in a philosophical not
grounded sense.. I'm of the belief that you
On Friday 19 September 2008, BillK wrote:
Last I heard Peter Norvig was saying that Google had no interest in
putting a natural language front-end on Google.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/18/1530209
Arguably that's still natural language, even if it's just tags instead
of
On Friday 19 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Your unconscious keeps talking to you. It is precisely paper that
mainly shapes your thinking about AI. Paper has been the defining
medium of literate civilisation. And what characterises all literate
forms is nice, discrete, static, fragmented,
On Wednesday 17 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
I think a similar case could be made for a lot of large open source
projects such as Linux itself. However, in this case and others, the
software itself is the result of a high-level super goal defined by
one or more humans. Even if no
On Thursday 18 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps
Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could
be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar
problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert,
On Wednesday 17 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
OK, how's that different from the collaboration inherent in any human
project? Can you just explain your viewpoint?
When you have something like 20,000+ contributors writing software that
can very, very easily break, I think it's an
On Monday 15 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
I send this along because it's a great example of how systems that
self-organize can result in structures and dynamics that are more
complex and efficient than anything we can purposefully design. The
applicability to the realm of designed
On Monday 15 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
By your argumentation, it would seem you won't find any argument
about intelligence of worth unless it explains everything. I've never
understood the strong resistance of many in the AI community to the
concepts involved with complexity theory,
On Tuesday 16 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
Not really familiar with apt-get. How is it a complex system? It
looks like it's just a software installation tool.
How many people are writing the software?
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers:
On Sunday 14 September 2008, Dimitry Volfson wrote:
Well, then I don't understand what you're looking for.
Brain chemistry is part of the model.
Check out one of the sentences:
The thalamus in the limbic system ('leopard brain') converts the
physical need into an urge within the cortex.
So
On Sunday 14 September 2008, Dimitry Volfson wrote:
Actually, I remember reading something about scientists finding a
list structure in the brain of a bird singing a song (a moving
pointer to the next item in a list sort of thing). But whatever.
That does sound interesting, yes, I'd like to
On Sunday 14 September 2008, Pei Wang wrote:
There is no guaranteed improvement in an open system.
On this note, somebody suggested I reread Wolfram's NKS pg 340~
yesterday. It was around this section of his book that he mentions his
lack of optimism in iteration to bring about 'improvement'
On Saturday 13 September 2008, Dimitry Volfson wrote:
Look at The Brain's Urge System at ChangingMinds.org
http://changingminds.org/explanations/brain/urge_system.htm: .
Notice that the stimulus can be pure thought. Meaning that a mental
image of a goal-state can form the basis of
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Rene de Visser wrote:
Any comments?
Yes. Please look into computational complexity and Big O notation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity
Computational complexity theory, as a branch of the theory of
computation in computer science,
On Friday 12 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
to understand a piece of information and its information objects,
(eg words) , is to realise (or know) how they refer to real
objects in the real world, (and, ideally, and often necessarily, to
be able to point to and engage with those real
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
I have asked this list as well as the singularity and SL4 lists
whether there are any non-evolutionary models (mathematical,
software, physical, or biological) for recursive self improvement
(RSI), i.e. where the parent and not the
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
You start v. constructively thinking how to test the non-programmed
nature of - or simply record - the actual writing of programs, and
then IMO fail to keep going.
You could trace their keyboard presses back to the cerebellum and motor
On Friday 05 September 2008, William Pearson wrote:
2008/9/5 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers
are guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even
On Friday 05 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Were your computer like a human mind, it would have been able to say
(as you/we all do) - well if that part of the problem is going to be
difficult, I'll ignore it or.. I'll just make up an answer... or
by God I'll keep trying other ways until
On Friday 05 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
fundamental programming problem, right?) A creative free machine,
like a human, really can follow any of what may be a vast range of
routes - and you really can't predict what it will do or, at a basic
level, be surprised by it.
What do you say
On Saturday 06 September 2008, William Pearson wrote:
I'm very interested in computers that self-maintain, that is reduce
(or eliminate) the need for a human to be in the loop or know much
about the internal workings of the computer. However it doesn't need
a vastly different computing
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Our unreliabilty is the negative flip-side of our positive ability
to stop an activity at any point, incl. the beginning and completely
change tack/ course or whole approach, incl. the task itself, and
even completely contradict ourself.
But
On Friday 05 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
So, Mike, is free will:
1) an illusion based on some kind of unpredictable, complex but
*deterministic* interaction of physical components 2) the result of
probabilistic physics - a *non-deterministic* interaction described
by something like
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Bryan,
How do you know the brain has a code? Why can't it be entirely
impression-istic - a system for literally forming, storing and
associating sensory impressions (including abstracted, simplified,
hierarchical impressions of other
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Yes you do. Every time you make a decision, you are assigning a
higher probability of a good outcome to your choice than to the
alternative.
You'll have to prove to me that I make decisions, whatever that means.
- Bryan
On Sunday 07 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Depends on what you mean by I.
You started it - your first message had that dependency on identity. :-)
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And as a matter of scientific, historical fact, computers are first
and foremost keyboards - i.e.devices for CREATING programs on
keyboards, - and only then following them. [Remember how AI gets
almost everything about intelligence back to
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
Thus is creativity possible while preserving determinism. Of course,
you still need to have an explanation for how creativity emerges in
either case, but in contrast to what you said before, some AI folks
have indeed worked on this issue.
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
I think this is a good important point. I've been groping confusedly
here. It seems to me computation necessarily involves the idea of
using a code (?). But the nervous system seems to me something
capable of functioning without a code -
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And what I am asserting is a paradigm of a creative machine, which
starts as, and is, NON-algorithmic and UNstructured in all its
activities, albeit that it acquires and creates a multitude of
algorithms, or
routines/structures, for *parts*
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And how to produce creativity is the central problem of AGI -
completely unsolved. So maybe a new approach/paradigm is worth at
least considering rather than more of the same? I'm not aware of a
single idea from any AGI-er past or present
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Do you honestly think that you write programs in a programmed way?
That it's not an *art* pace Matt, full of hesitation, halts,
meandering, twists and turns, dead ends, detours etc? If you have
to have some sort of program to start with, how
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Valentina Poletti wrote:
When we want to step further and create an AGI I think we want to
externalize the very ability to create technology - we want the
environment to start adapting to us by itself, spontaneously by
gaining our goals.
There is a sense of
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
A closed model is unrealistic, but an open model is even more
unrealistic because you lack a means of assigning likelihoods to
statements like the sun will rise tomorrow or the world will end
tomorrow. You absolutely must have a means of
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Another aspect of embodiment (as the term is commonly used), is the
false appearance of intelligence. We associate intelligence with
humans, given that there are no other examples. So giving an AI a
face or a robotic body modeled after a human
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Abram Demski wrote:
My intention here is that there is a basic level of well-defined,
crisp models which probabilities act upon; so in actuality the
system will never be using a single model, open or closed...
I think Mike's model is one more of approach,
On Friday 27 June 2008, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Pardon my fury, but the problem is understanding HOW TO DO IT, and
HOW TO BUILD THE TOOLS TO DO IT, not having expensive hardware. So
long as some people on this list repeat this mistake, this list will
degenerate even further into
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It oughtn't to be all neuro- though. There is a need for some kind of
corporate science - that studies whole body simulation and not just the
cerebral end,.After all, a lot of the simulations being talked about are v.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyhow it is very interesting. Perhaps savantism is an attention mechanism
disorder? Like, too much attention.
Yes.
Autism is a devastating neurodevelopmental disorder with a
polygenetic predisposition that seems to
On Saturday 22 December 2007, Philip Goetz wrote:
If we define mindreading as knowing whether someone is telling the
truth, whether someone likes you, or is sexually attracted to you, or
recognizes you; knowing whether someone is paying attention; knowing
whether someone is reasoning logically
On Friday 14 December 2007, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
But, we're still quite clueless about how to, say, hook the brain up
to a calculator or to Google in a useful way... due to having a
vastly insufficiently detailed knowledge of how the brain carries out
cognitive operations...
While overall
On Friday 14 December 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote:
Are there any efforts at using Nootropic drugs in a 'brain
enhancement race' ? I haven't heard about it, but then I wouldn't
because the program would be kept secret.
There might be one behind the scenes. *cough*
- Bryan
-
This list is
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Dennis Gorelik wrote:
In my taste, testing with clueless judges is more appropriate
approach. It makes test less biased.
How can they judge when they don't know what they are judging? Surely,
when they hang out for some cyberlovin', they are not scanning for
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case
scenario accounts for nearly any finite computing power, via the
production of semiconductant silicon wafer tech.
A human brain sized
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Dennis Gorelik wrote:
If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first
computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing
Test.
I thought the Turing Test involved fooling/convincing judges, not
clueless men hoping to get some
On Monday 10 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote:
The worst case scenario is that AI wipes out all life on earth, and
then itself, although I believe at least the AI is likely to survive.
http://lifeboat.com/ex/ai.shield
Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case scenario
On Sunday 09 December 2007, Mark Waser wrote:
Pascal's wager starts with the false assumption that belief in a
deity has no cost.
Formally, yes. However, I think it's easy to imagine a Pascal's wager
where we replace diety with anything Truly Objective, such as
whatever it is that we hope the
Here's the worst case scenario I see for ai: that there has to be
hardware complexity to the extent that generally nobody is going to be
able to get the initial push. Indeed, there's Moore's law to take
account of, but the economics might just prevent us from accumulating
enough nodes, enough
On Friday 07 December 2007, Mike Tintner wrote:
P.S. You also don't answer my question re: how many neurons in total
*can* be activated within a half second, or given period, to work on
a given problem - given their relative slowness of communication? Is
it indeed possible for hundreds of
On Sunday 02 December 2007, John G. Rose wrote:
Building up parse trees and word sense models, let's say that would
be a first step. And then say after a while this was accomplished and
running on some peers. What would the next theoretical step be?
I am not sure what the next step would be.
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Ed Porter wrote:
Somebody (I think it was David Hart) told me there is a shareware
distributed web crawler already available, but I don't know the
details, such as how good or fast it is.
http://grub.org/
Previous owner went by the name of 'kordless'. I found him
On Monday 03 December 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote:
I believe the next step of such a system is to become an abstraction
between the user and the network they're using. So if you can hook
into your P2P network via a firefox extension, (consider StumbleUpon
or Greasemonkey) so it (the agent) can
On Thursday 15 November 2007 08:16, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
non-brain-based AGI. After all it's not like we know how real
chemistry gives rise to real biology yet --- the dynamics underlying
protein-folding remain ill-understood, etc. etc.
Can anybody elaborate on the actual problems
On Thursday 15 November 2007 02:30, Bob Mottram wrote:
I think the main problem here is the low complexity of the
environment
Complex programs can only be written in an environment capable of
bearing that complexity:
http://sl4.org/archive/0710/16880.html
- Bryan
-
This list is
On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:02, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 8:57 PM, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anybody elaborate on the actual problems remaining (beyond
etc. etc.-- which is appropriate from Ben who is most notably not
a biochemist/chemist/bioinformatician
On Thursday 15 November 2007 21:19, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
so we still don't know exactly how poor
a model the formal neuron used in computer science is
Speaking of which: isn't this the age-old simple math function involving
an integral or two and a summation over the inputs? I
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:55, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I was really thinking of the data collection problem: we cannot take
one brain and get full information about all those things, down to a
sufficient level of detail. I do not see such a technology even over
the horizon (short of
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:28, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The complaint is not your symbols are not connected to experience.
Everyone and their mother has an AI system that could be connected to
real world input. The simple act of connecting to the real world is
NOT the core problem.
Are
Ben,
This is all very interesting work. I have heard of brain slicing before,
as well as viral gene therapy to add a way for our neurons to debug
themselves into the blood stream, which is not yet technologically
possible (or here yet, rather), and the age-old concept of using MNT
to signal
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:11, Richard Loosemore wrote:
This is the whole brain emulation approach, I guess (my previous
comments were about evolution of brains rather than neural level
duplication).
Ah, you are right. But this too is an interesting topic. I think that
the order of
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 17:12, Benjamin Johnston wrote:
Why not try this list, and then move to the private discussion model
(or start an [agi-developer] list) if there's a backlash?
I'd certainly join.
- Bryan
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To
On Monday 12 November 2007 15:56, Richard Loosemore wrote:
You never know what new situation might arise that might be a
problem, and you cannot market a driverless car on the understanding
that IF it starts killing people under particular circumstances, THEN
someone will follow that by adding
On Monday 12 November 2007 19:31, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Yikes, no: my strategy is to piggyback on all that work, not to try
to duplicate it.
Even the Genetic Algorithm people don't (I think) dream of evolution
on that scale.
Yudkowsky recently wrote an email on preservation of the
On Monday 12 November 2007 19:48, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Even with everyone on the planet running evolutionary simulations, I
do not believe we could reinvent an intelligent system by brute
force.
Of your message, this part is the most peculiar. Brute force is all that
we have.
- Bryan
On Monday 12 November 2007 22:16, Richard Loosemore wrote:
If anyone were to throw that quantity of resources at the AGI problem
(recruiting all of the planet), heck, I could get it done in about 3
years. ;-)
I have done some research on this topic in the last hour and have found
that a
Excellent post, and I hope that I may come across enough time to give it
a more thorough reading.
Is it possible that at the moment our working with 'intelligence' is
just like flapping in an attempt to fly? It seems like the concept of
intelligence is a good way to preserve the nonabsurdity
On Friday 09 November 2007 23:27, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
I would bet that merging two KB's obtained by mining natural
language would work a lot better than merging two KB's
like Cyc and SUMO that were artificially created by humans.
Upon reading Waser's response I reread that segment to say
On Saturday 10 November 2007 09:29, Derek Zahn wrote:
On such a chart I think we're supposed to be at something like mouse
level right now -- and in fact we have seen supercomputers beginning
to take a shot at simulating mouse-brain-like structures.
Ref?
- Bryan
-
This list is sponsored
On Saturday 10 November 2007 10:07, Kaj Sotala wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
The researchers say that although the simulation shared some
similarities with a mouse's mental make-up in terms of nerves and
connections it lacked the structures seen in real mice brains.
On Saturday 10 November 2007 11:31, Derek Zahn wrote:
Unfortunately, not enough is yet known about specific connectivity so
the best that can be done is play with structures of similar scale in
anticipation of further advances.
What signs will tell us that we do know enough about the
On Saturday 10 November 2007 12:52, Edward W. Porter wrote:
In fact, if the ITRS roadmap projections continue to be met through
What is the ITRS roadmap? Do you have a link?
- Bryan
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please
On Saturday 10 November 2007 12:52, Edward W. Porter wrote:
There is a small, but increasing number of people who pretty much
understand how to build artificial brains
I would be interested in learning who these people are and meeting them.
Artificial brains are tough things to build. A sac of
On Saturday 10 November 2007 13:40, Charles D Hixson wrote:
OTOH, to make a go of this would require several people willing to
dedicate a lot of time consistently over a long duration.
A good start might be a few bibliographies.
http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/bibliography/
- Bryan
-
This list
On Saturday 10 November 2007 14:10, Charles D Hixson wrote:
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Saturday 10 November 2007 13:40, Charles D Hixson wrote:
OTOH, to make a go of this would require several people willing to
dedicate a lot of time consistently over a long duration.
A good start might
On Saturday 10 November 2007 14:17, I wrote:
Bibliography + paper archive, then.
http://arxiv.org/ (perhaps we need one for AGI)
It has come to my attention that there is no open source software for
(p)reprint archives. This is unacceptable- I was hoping to quickly
download something from
On Friday 09 November 2007 20:01, John G. Rose wrote:
I already have some basics of merging OOP and Group/Category Theory.
Am working on some ideas on jamming, or I should say intertwining
automata in that. The complexity integration still trying to figure
out... trying to stay as far from
On Saturday 03 November 2007 16:53, Edward W. Porter wrote:
In my below recent list of ways to improve the power of human
intelligent augmentation I forgot to think about possible ways to
actually increase the bandwidth of the top level decision making of
the brain, which I had listed as a
On Sunday 04 November 2007 14:37, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Re: augmenting/replacing the PFC. We can advance this field of
knowledge via attempting to extend Dr. White's work on brain
transplantation in monkeys, instead with mice, in an attempt to keep
brain regions of the mice on life
82 matches
Mail list logo
