Re: [agi] Hutter - A fundamental misdirection?
In short, instead of a pot of neurons, we might instead have a pot of
dozens of types of
neurons that each have their own complex rules regarding what other types
of neurons they
can connect to, and how they process information...
...there is plenty of evidence (from the slowness of evolution, the large
number (~200)
of neuron types, etc.), that it is many-layered and quite complex...
The disconnect between the low-level neural hardware and the implementation
of algorithms that build conceptual spaces via dimensionality
reduction--which generally ignore facts such as the existence of different
types of neurons, the apparently hierarchical organization of neocortex,
etc.--seems significant. Have there been attempts to develop computational
models capable of LSA-style feats (e.g., constructing a vector space in
which words with similar meanings tend to be relatively close to each other)
that take into account basic facts about how neurons actually operate
(ideally in a more sophisticated way than the nodes of early connectionist
networks which, as we now know, are not particularly neuron-like at all)? If
so, I would love to know about them.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote:
The paper seems very similar in principle to LSA. What you need for a
concept vector (or position) is the application of LSA followed by K-Means
which will give you your concept clusters.
I would not knock Hutter too much. After all LSA reduces {primavera,
mamanthal, salsa, resorte} to one word giving 2 bits saving on Hutter.
- Ian Parker
On 29 June 2010 07:32, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, the link I included was invalid, this is what I meant:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~raubal/Publications/RefConferences/ICSC_2009_AdamsRaubal_Camera-FINAL.pdfhttp://www.geog.ucsb.edu/%7Eraubal/Publications/RefConferences/ICSC_2009_AdamsRaubal_Camera-FINAL.pdf
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:28 AM, rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Steve Richfield
steve.richfi...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I think based on what you wrote, you understood (mostly) what I was
trying to get across. So I'm glad it was at least quasi-intelligible. :)
It sounds like this is a finer measure than the dimensionality that I
was referencing. However, I don't see how to reduce anything as quantized
as
dimensionality into finer measures. Can you say some more about this?
I was just referencing Gardenfors' research program of conceptual
spaces (I was intentionally vague about committing to this fully though
because I don't necessarily think this is the whole answer). Page 2 of this
article summarizes it pretty succinctly: http://http://goog_1627994790
www.geog.ucsb.edu/.../ICSC_2009_AdamsRaubal_Camera-FINAL.pdf
However, different people's brains, even the brains of identical twins,
have DIFFERENT mappings. This would seem to mandate experience-formed
topology.
Yes definitely.
Since these conceptual spaces that structure sensorimotor
expectation/prediction (including in higher order embodied exploration of
concepts I think) are multidimensional spaces, it seems likely that some
kind of neural computation over these spaces must occur,
I agree.
though I wonder what it actually would be in terms of neurons, (and if
that matters).
I don't see any route to the answer except via neurons.
I agree this is true of natural intelligence, though maybe in modeling,
the neural level can be shortcut to the topo map level without recourse to
neural computation (use some more straightforward computation like matrix
algebra instead).
Rob
*agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription
http://www.listbox.com
*agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription
http://www.listbox.com
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Let's face it, this is just dumb.
I remember reading awhile back that certain Japanese vending machines dispensing adult-only materials actually employed such age-estimation software for a short time, but quickly pulled it after discovering that teens were thwarting it by holding magazine covers up to the camera. No floppy hat or Ronald Reagan mask necessary. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, that's a pretty strong response there, Matt. Friends of yours? If I were in control of such things, I wouldn't DARE walk out of a lab and announce results like that. So I have no fear of being the one to bring that type of criticism on myself. But, I'm just as vulnerable as any of us to having colleagues do it for (to) me. So, yeah. I have a problem with premature release, or announcement, of a technology that's associated with an industry in which I work. It's irresponsible science when scientists do it. It's irresponsible marketing (now, there's a redundant phrase for you) when company management does it. And, it's irresponsible for you to defend such practices. That stuff deserved to be mocked. Get over it. Cheers, Brad Matt Mahoney wrote: So here is another step toward AGI, a hard image classification problem solved with near human-level ability, and all I hear is criticism. Sheesh! I hope your own work is not attacked like this. I would understand if the researchers had proposed something stupid like using the software in court to distinguish adult and child pornography. Please try to distinguish between the research and the commentary by the reporters. A legitimate application could be estimating the average age plus or minus 2 months of a group of 1000 shoppers in a marketing study. In any case, machine surveillance is here to stay. Get used to it. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Let's face it, this is just dumb. To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 6:21 AM 2008/10/2 Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It boasts a 50% recognition accuracy rate +/-5 years and an 80% recognition accuracy rate +/-10 years. Unless, of course, the subject is wearing a big floppy hat, makeup or has had Botox treatment recently. Or found his dad's Ronald Reagan mask. 'Nuf said. Yes. This kind of accuracy would not be good enough to enforce age related rules surrounding the buying of certain products, nor does it seem likely to me that refinements of the technique will give the needed accuracy. As you point out people have been trying to fool others about their age for millenia, and this trend is only going to complicate matters further. In future if De Grey gets his way this kind of recognition will be useless anyway. P.S. Oh, yeah, and the guy responsible for this project claims it doesn't violate anyone's privacy because it can't be used to identify individuals. Right. They don't say who sponsored this research, but I sincerely doubt it was the vending machine companies or purveyors of Internet porn. It's good to question the true motives behind something like this, and where the funding comes from. I do a lot of stuff with computer vision, and if someone came to me saying they wanted something to visually recognise the age of a person I'd tell them that they're probably wasting their time, and that indicators other than visual ones would be more likely to give a reliable result. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
Has anyone come across (or written) any papers that argue for particular low-level capabilities that any system capable of human-level intelligence must possess, and which posits particular tests for assessing whether a system possesses these prerequisites for intelligence? I'm looking for anything like this, or indeed anything that tries to lay out an incremental path toward AGI with testable benchmarks along the way. I'd be very appreciative if anyone could point me to any such work. Gabe On 10/19/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I largely agree. It's worth pointing out that Carnot published Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and established the science of thermodynamics more than a century after the first working steam engines were built. That said, I opine that an intuitive grasp of some of the important elements in what will ultimately become the science of intelligence is likely to be very useful to those inventing AGI. Yeah, most certainly However, an intuitive grasp -- and even a well-fleshed-out qualitative theory supplemented by heuristic back-of-the-envelope calculations and prototype results -- is very different from a defensible, rigorous theory that can stand up to the assaults of intelligent detractors I didn't start seriously trying to design implement AGI until I felt I had a solid intuitive grasp of all related issues. But I did make a conscious choice to devote more effort to utilizing my intuitive grasp to try to design and create AGI, rather than to creating better general AI theories Both are worthy pursuits, and both are difficult. I actually enjoy theory better. But my sense is that the heyday of AGI theorizing is gonna come after AGI experimentation has progressed a good bit further than it has today... -- Ben G -- 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=8660244id_secret=55733424-f2512b
Re: [agi] Neural representations of negation and time?
Hi Eugen, Here's some research to suggest that representations of space and time might not be so different. From the abstract: The present paper evaluates the claim that abstract conceptual domains are structured through metaphorical mappings from domains grounded directly in experience. In particular, the paper asks whether the abstract domain of time gets its relational structure from the more concrete domain of space. Relational similarities between space and time are outlined along with several explanations of how these similarities may have arisen... An interesting read. http://psychology.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/metaphors.pdf (By the way, I'm new here; looking forward to meeting you all.) Zale --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
