RE: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
Mike, To put it into your own words here, mathematics is a delineation out of the infinitely diversifiable, the same zone where design comes from. And design needs a medium, the medium can be the symbolic expressions and language of mathematics. And so conveniently here the mathematics is expressible in a software language, computer system and database. Don't forget, the designer in all of us needs a medium to express and communicate, if not it remains in a void. A designer emits design, and in this case, AGI, the design is the/a designer. Sounds kind of hokey but true. there are other narrow cases where this is true, but not in the grand way AGI is. IOW, in a way, AGI will design itself, it's coming out of the infinitely diversifiable and maintaining a communication with it as a delineation within itself. It's self-organizingly injecting itself into this chaotic world via our intended or unintended manifestations. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] JAR: Define infinitely diversifiable. I just did more or less. A form/shape can be said to be delineated (although I'm open to alternative terms, because delineation needn't consist of using lines as such - as in my examples, it could involve using amorphous masses, or pseudo-lines). Diversification - in this case creating new kinds of font - therefore involves using 1) new principles of delineation - the kinds of lines/visual elements used are radically changed, and 2) new principles of **arrangement** of the visual elements - for example, various fonts there can be said to conform to an A arrangement, but one or more shifted that to a new triangle arrangement without any cross-bar in the middle; using double/triple lines could be classified as either 1) or 2) I guess. An innovative (although pos. PITA) arrangement would be to have elements that move/are mobile. And delineation involves 3) introducing new kinds of elements *in addition* to those already there or deleting existing kinds of elements. Diversifiable is merely recognizing the realities of the fields of art and design, which is that they will - and a creative algorithm therefore would have to be able to - infinitely/endlessly transform the constitution and principles of delineation and depiction of any and all forms. I think part of the problem here is that you guys think like mathematicians and not designers - you see the world in terms of more or less rigidly structured abstract forms ( that allows for all geometric morphisms) - but a designer has to think consciously or unconsciously much more fluidly in terms of kaleidomorphic, freely structured and fluidly morphable abstract forms. He sees abstract forms as infinitely diversifiable. You don't. To do AGI, I'm suggesting - in fact, I'm absolutely sure - you will have to start thinking in addition like designers. If you have contempt for design, as most people here seem to do, it is actually you who deserve contempt. God was a designer long before He took up maths. From: J. Andrew Rogers mailto:jar.mail...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:23 PM To: AGI mailto:a...@listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: You do understand BTW that your creative algorithm must be able to produce not just a limited collection of shapes [either squares or A's] but an infinitely diversifiable** collection. Define infinitely diversifiable. There are whole fields of computer science dedicated to small applications that routinely generate effectively unbounded diversity in the strongest possible sense. -- J. Andrew Rogers AGI | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Description: Image removed by sender.| https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ Description: Image removed by sender. AGI | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Description: Image removed by sender.| https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ Description: Image removed by sender. --- 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 ~WRD000.jpg
[agi] Natural Hyjacked Behavioral Control
I thought this was interesting when looked at in relation to evolution and a parasitic intelligence - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/18/zombie-carpenter-ant-fungus --- 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] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
An agent can only flip so many bits per second. If it gets stuck in a computational conundrum it will waste energy that should be used for survival purposes and the likelihood for agent death increases. Avoidance behavior for impossible computation is enforced. Mathematics is a type of database for computational energy storage. All of us multi-agent intelligences, mainly mathematicians, contribute to it over time. How long did it take to invent the wheel, but once the pattern is known, it takes just a few bits to store. That's one obvious method of the leveraging, but this could be, and is, used all over the place. John From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] John How would a mathematical system that is able to leverage for unnecessary or impossible computation work exactly. What do you mean by this? And how would this work to produce better integration of concepts and better interpretation of concepts? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically. I don't understand this. Computers can represent related data objects that may be best considered without using mathematical terms (or with only incidental mathematical functions related to things like the numbers of objects.) The difference between data and code, or math and data, sometimes need not be as dichotomous. I said: I think the more important question is how does a general concept be interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas. Actually this is not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved? John said: Depends on the structure. We would want to build it such that this happens at various levels or the various multidimensional densities. But at the same time complex state is preserved until proven benefits show themselves. Your use of the term 'densities' suggests that you are thinking about the kinds of statistical relations that have been talked about a number of times in this group. The whole problem I have with statistical models is that they don't typically represent the modelling variations that could be and would need to be encoded into the ideas that are being represented. For example a Bayesian Network does imply that a resulting evaluation would subsequently be encoded into the network evaluation process, but only in a limited manner. It doesn't for example show how an idea could change the model, even though that would be easy to imagine. Jim Bromer I also have some issues with heavily based statistical models. When I was referring to densities I was really meaning an interconnectional multidimensionality in the multigraph/hypergraph intelligence network, IOW a partly combinatorial edge of chaos. There is a combination of state and computational potential energy that an incoming idea, represented as a data/math combo, would result in various partly self-organizational (SOM) changes depending on how the key - the idea - effects computational energy potential. And this is balanced against K-complexity related local extrema. For the statistical mechanisms I would use for more of the narrow AI stuff that is needed and also for situations that you can't come up with something more concrete/discrete. John --- 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/? https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com http://www.listbox.com/ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] Nao Nao
I suppose that part of the work that it does is making people feel good and being a neat conversation piece. Interoperability and communications protocols can facilitate the path to AGI. Just like the many protocols used on the internet. I haven't looked at any for robotics specifically though there definitely are some. But having worked with many myself I am familiar with limitations, shortcomings and issues. Protocols is where it's at when making diverse systems work together and having good protocols initially can save vast amounts of engineering work. It's bang for the buck in a big way. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:02 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Nao Nao By not made to perform work, you mean that it is not sturdy enough? Are any half-way AGI robots made to perform work, vs production line robots? (I think the idea of performing useful work should be a goal). The protocol is obviously a good idea, but you're not suggesting it per se will lead to AGI? From: John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:17 PM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao Typically the demo is some of the best that it can do. It looks like the robot is a mass produced model that has some really basic handling capabilities, not that it is made to perform work. It could still have relatively advanced microprocessor and networking system, IOW parts of the brain could run on centralized servers. I don't think they did that BUT it could. But it looks like one Nao can talk to another Nao. What's needed here is a standardized robot communication protocol. So a Nao could talk to a vacuum cleaner or a video cam or any other device that supports the protocol. Companies may resist this at first as they want to grab market share and don't understand the benefit. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:56 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Nao Nao John, Any more detailed thoughts about its precise handling capabilities? Did it, first, not pick up the duck independently, (without human assistance)? If it did, what do you think would be the range of its object handling? (I had an immediate question about all this - have asked the site for further clarificiation - but nothing yet). From: John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism. And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet. But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy issues... John From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] Way too pessimistic in my opinion. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
-Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically. I don't understand this. Computers can represent related data objects that may be best considered without using mathematical terms (or with only incidental mathematical functions related to things like the numbers of objects.) The difference between data and code, or math and data, sometimes need not be as dichotomous. I said: I think the more important question is how does a general concept be interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas. Actually this is not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved? John said: Depends on the structure. We would want to build it such that this happens at various levels or the various multidimensional densities. But at the same time complex state is preserved until proven benefits show themselves. Your use of the term 'densities' suggests that you are thinking about the kinds of statistical relations that have been talked about a number of times in this group. The whole problem I have with statistical models is that they don't typically represent the modelling variations that could be and would need to be encoded into the ideas that are being represented. For example a Bayesian Network does imply that a resulting evaluation would subsequently be encoded into the network evaluation process, but only in a limited manner. It doesn't for example show how an idea could change the model, even though that would be easy to imagine. Jim Bromer I also have some issues with heavily based statistical models. When I was referring to densities I was really meaning an interconnectional multidimensionality in the multigraph/hypergraph intelligence network, IOW a partly combinatorial edge of chaos. There is a combination of state and computational potential energy that an incoming idea, represented as a data/math combo, would result in various partly self-organizational (SOM) changes depending on how the key - the idea - effects computational energy potential. And this is balanced against K-complexity related local extrema. For the statistical mechanisms I would use for more of the narrow AI stuff that is needed and also for situations that you can't come up with something more concrete/discrete. John --- 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] Nao Nao
Typically the demo is some of the best that it can do. It looks like the robot is a mass produced model that has some really basic handling capabilities, not that it is made to perform work. It could still have relatively advanced microprocessor and networking system, IOW parts of the brain could run on centralized servers. I don't think they did that BUT it could. But it looks like one Nao can talk to another Nao. What's needed here is a standardized robot communication protocol. So a Nao could talk to a vacuum cleaner or a video cam or any other device that supports the protocol. Companies may resist this at first as they want to grab market share and don't understand the benefit. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:56 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Nao Nao John, Any more detailed thoughts about its precise handling capabilities? Did it, first, not pick up the duck independently, (without human assistance)? If it did, what do you think would be the range of its object handling? (I had an immediate question about all this - have asked the site for further clarificiation - but nothing yet). From: John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism. And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet. But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy issues... John From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] Way too pessimistic in my opinion. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] Nao Nao
Well both. Though much of the control could be remote depending on bandwidth. Also, one robot could benefit from the eyes of many as they would all be internetworked to a degree. John From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] Your remarks about WiFi echo my own view. Should a robot rely on an external connection (WiFi) or should it have complex processing itself. In general we try to keep real time response information local, although local my be viewed in terms of the c the speed of light. If a PC is 150m away from a robot this is a 300m double journey which will take a microsecond. To access the Web for a program will, of course, take considerably longer. A μ sec is nothing even when we are considering time critical functions like balance. However for balance it might be a good idea to either have the robot balancing, or else to have a card inserted into the PC. This is one topic for which I have not been able to have a satisfactory discussion or answer. People who build robots tend to think in terms of having the processing power on the robot. This I believe is wrong. - Ian Parker On 10 August 2010 00:06, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] An unusually sophisticated ( somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expre sses-and-detects-emotions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expres ses-and-detects-emotions.html agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ --- 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] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
-Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical. The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically. For instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you are capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something. This means that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own programming. Mmm yes or like a key. While the idea in this example would be associated with a fairly strong notion of meaning, since you cannot accurately understand the full consequences of the change it would be somewhat vague at first. (It could be a very precise idea capable of having strong effect, but the details of those effects would not be known until the change had progressed.) Yes. It would need to have receptors, an affinity something like that, or somehow enable an efficiency change. I think the more important question is how does a general concept be interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas. Actually this is not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved? Jim Depends on the structure. We would want to build it such that this happens at various levels or the various multidimensional densities. But at the same time complex state is preserved until proven benefits show themselves. John --- 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] Nao Nao
I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism. And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet. But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy issues... John From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] Way too pessimistic in my opinion. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John --- 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] How To Create General AI Draft2
Actually this is quite critical. Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the mind processes it. It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I would go for though... John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You're waffling. You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you. Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two. You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do you? Yes/no. No. That's not funny, that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and through. From: David Jones mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous arguments to you. You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? The mere fact that you can refer to a chair means that it is a recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. Dave On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And matter is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your basic world/visual-world analytic units wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for chair or table. Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call fundamental analysis - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/fundamental unit. From: David Jones mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) Learning about the world won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning? The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to. 3) Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes it general! Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. You are only right that I haven't demonstrated it. I will address this in the next paper and continue adding details over the next few drafts. As a simple argument against your counter argument... If that were true that we could not understand the world using a limited
RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
-Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] The question for me is not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the most common examples that the person is familiar with. This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think that this subsystem would take up millions of lines of code either. It's just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure IMO. John --- 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: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Hmm... Shall we coin this the Tinter Contrarian Pattern? Or anti-pattern :) John From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] I agree John that this is a useful exercise. This would be a good discussion if mike would ever admit that I might be right and he might be wrong. I'm not sure that will ever happen though. :) First he says I can't define a pattern that works. Then, when I do, he says the pattern is no good because it isn't physical. Lol. If he would ever admit that I might have gotten it right, the discussion would be a good one. Instead, he hugs his preconceived notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason, any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong. On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Actually this is quite critical. Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the mind processes it. It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I would go for though... John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:28 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You're waffling. You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you. Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two. You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do you? Yes/no. No. That's not funny, that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and through. From: David Jones mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous arguments to you. You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? The mere fact that you can refer to a chair means that it is a recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. Dave On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And matter is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your basic world/visual-world analytic units wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for chair or table. Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call fundamental analysis - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/fundamental unit. From: David Jones mailto:davidher...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) Learning about the world won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning
RE: [agi] Nao Nao
Aww, so cute. I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network. So cuddly! And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most for access. Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :) John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] An unusually sophisticated ( somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expre sses-and-detects-emotions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expres ses-and-detects-emotions.html agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
Well, these artificial identities need to complete a loop. Say the artificial identity acquires an email address, phone#, a physical address, a bank account, logs onto Amazon and purchases stuff automatically it needs to be able to put money into its bank account. So let's say it has a low profit scheme to scalp day trading profits with its stock trading account. That's the loop, it has to be able to make money to make purchases. And then automatically file its taxes with the IRS. Then it's really starting to look like a full legally functioning identity. It could persist in this fashion for years. I would bet that these identities already exist. What happens when there are many, many of them? Would we even know? John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 8:17 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity Ian, I recall several years ago that a group in Britain was operating just such a chatterbox as you explained, but did so on numerous sex-related sites, all running simultaneously. The chatterbox emulated young girls looking for sex. The program just sat there doing its thing on numerous sites, and whenever a meeting was set up, it would issue a message to its human owners to alert the police to go and arrest the pedophiles at the arranged time and place. No human interaction was needed between arrests. I can imagine an adaptation, wherein a program claims to be manufacturing explosives, and is looking for other people to deliver those explosives. With such a story line, there should be no problem arranging deliveries, at which time you would arrest the would-be bombers. I wish I could tell you more about the British project, but they were VERY secretive. I suspect that some serious Googling would yield much more. Hopefully you will find this helpful. Steve = On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to see what other people's views were.My own view of the risks is as follows. If the Turing Machine is built to be as isomorphic with humans as possible, it would be incredibly dangerous. Indeed I feel that the biological model is far more dangerous than the mathematical. If on the other hand the TM was not isomorphic and made no attempt to be, the dangers would be a lot less. Most Turing/Löbner entries are chatterboxes that work on databases. The database being filled as you chat. Clearly the system cannot go outside its database and is safe. There is in fact some use for such a chatterbox. Clearly a Turing machine would be able to infiltrate militant groups however it was constructed. As for it pretending to be stupid, it would have to know in what direction it had to be stupid. Hence it would have to be a good psychologist. Suppose it logged onto a jihardist website, as well as being able to pass itself off as a true adherent, it could also look at the other members and assess their level of commitment and knowledge. I think that the true Turing/Löbner test is not working in a laboratory environment but they should log onto jihardist sites and see how well they can pass themselves off. If it could do that it really would have arrived. Eventually it could pass itself off as a peniti to use the Mafia term and produce arguments from the Qur'an against the militant position. There would be quite a lot of contracts to be had if there were a realistic prospect of doing this. - Ian Parker On 7 August 2010 06:50, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with it. Humans without augmentation are only so intelligent. A Turing machine would be potentially dangerous, a really well built one. At some point we'd need to see some DNA as ID of another extended TT. Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would give us political insights. You can have a relatively stupid TM or a sophisticated one just like humans. It might be easier to pass the TT by not exposing too much intelligence. John These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. - Ian Parker --- 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/? https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member
RE: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
statements of stupidity - some of these are examples of cramming sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Language is both intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, I had no choice but to ... is a compressed summary of potentially vastly complex issues. The mind gets hung-up sometimes on this language of ours. Better off at times to think less using English language and express oneself with a wider spectrum communiqué. Doing a dance and throwing paint in the air for example, as some *primitive* cultures actually do, conveys information also and is medium of expression rather than using a restrictive human chat protocol. BTW the rules of etiquette of the human language protocol are even more potentially restricting though necessary for efficient and standardized data transfer to occur. Like, TCP/IP for example. The Etiquette in TCP/IP is like an OSI layer, akin to human language etiquette. John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] To All, I have posted plenty about statements of ignorance, our probable inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be thinking, heidenbugs, etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that hopefully others here can shed some light on. People often say things that indicate their limited mental capacity, or at least their inability to comprehend specific situations. 1) One of my favorites are people who say I had no choice but to ..., which of course indicates that they are clearly intellectually challenged because there are ALWAYS other choices, though it may be difficult to find one that is in all respects superior. While theoretically this statement could possibly be correct, in practice I have never found this to be the case. 2) Another one recently from this very forum was If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This may be theoretically true, but in fact was, as usual, made as a statement as to why the author was summarily dismissing an apparent opportunity of GREAT value. This dismissal of something BECAUSE of its great value would seem to severely limit the authors prospects for success in life, which probably explains why he spends so much time here challenging others who ARE doing something with their lives. 3) I used to evaluate inventions for some venture capitalists. Sometimes I would find that some basic law of physics, e.g. conservation of energy, would have to be violated for the thing to work. When I explained this to the inventors, their inevitable reply was Yea, and they also said that the Wright Brothers' plane would never fly. To this, I explained that the Wright Brothers had invested ~200 hours of effort working with their crude homemade wind tunnel, and ask what the inventors have done to prove that their own invention would work. 4) One old stupid standby, spoken when you have make a clear point that shows that their argument is full of holes That is just your opinion. No, it is a proven fact for you to accept or refute. 5) Perhaps you have your own pet statements of stupidity? I suspect that there may be enough of these to dismiss some significant fraction of prospective users of beyond-human-capability (I just hate the word intelligence) programs. In short, semantic analysis of these statements typically would NOT find them to be conspicuously false, and hence even an AGI would be tempted to accept them. However, their use almost universally indicates some short-circuit in thinking. The present Dr. Eliza program could easily recognize such statements. OK, so what? What should an AI program do when it encounters a stupid user? Should some attempt be made to explain stupidity to someone who is almost certainly incapable of comprehending their own stupidity? Stupidity is forever is probably true, especially when expressed by an adult. Note my own dismissal of a some past posters for insufficient mental ability to understand certain subjects, whereupon they invariably come back repeating the SAME flawed logic, after I carefully explained the breaks in their logic. Clearly, I was just wasting my effort by continuing to interact with these people. Note that providing a stupid user with ANY output is probably a mistake, because they will almost certainly misconstrue it in some way. Perhaps it might be possible to dumb down the output to preschool-level, at least that (small) part of the output that can be accurately stated in preschool terms. Eventually as computers continue to self-evolve, we will ALL be categorized as some sort of stupid, and receive stupid-adapted output. I wonder whether, ultimately, computers will have ANYTHING to say to us, like any more than we now say to our dogs. Perhaps the final winner of the Reverse Turing Test will remain completely silent?! You don't explain to your dog why you can't pay the rent from The Fall of Colossus. Any thoughts? Steve
RE: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
-Original Message- From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of similarity with the human. Hence for a machine to be truly Turing it would have to make mistakes. Now any useful system will be made as intelligent as we can make it. The TT will be seen to be an irrelevancy. Philosophical question no 1 :- How useful is the TT. TT in its basic form is rather simplistic. It's thought of usually in its ideal form, the determination of an AI or a human. I look at it more of analogue verses discrete boolean. Much of what is out there is human with computer augmentation and echoes of human interaction. It's blurry in reality and the TT has been passed in some ways but not in its most ideal way. As I said in my correspondence With Jan Klouk, the human being is stupid, often dangerously stupid. Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with it. Humans without augmentation are only so intelligent. A Turing machine would be potentially dangerous, a really well built one. At some point we'd need to see some DNA as ID of another extended TT. Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would give us political insights. You can have a relatively stupid TM or a sophisticated one just like humans. It might be easier to pass the TT by not exposing too much intelligence. John These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. - Ian Parker --- 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] Pretty worldchanging
You have to give toast though to Net entities like Wikipedia, I'd dare say one of humankind's greatest achievements. Then eventually over a few years it'll be available as a plug-in, as a virtual trepan thus reducing the effort of subsuming all that. And then maybe structural intelligence add-ins so that abstract concepts need not be learned by medieval rote conditioning. These humanity features are not far off. So instead of a $35 laptop a fifty cent liqua chip could be injected as a prole inoculation/augmentation. John From: Boris Kazachenko [mailto:bori...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:50 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Pretty worldchanging Maybe there are some students on this email list, who are wading through all the BS and learning something about AGI, by following links and reading papers mentioned here, etc. Without the Net, how would these students learn about AGI, in practice? Such education would be far harder to come by and less effective without the Net. That's world-changing... ;-) ... The Net saves time. Back in the day, one could spend a lifetime sifting through paper in the library, or traveling the world to meet authorities. Now you do some googling, realize that no one has a clue, go on to do some real work on your own. That's if you have the guts, of course. intelligence-as-a-cognitive-algorithm http://ntelligence-as-a-cognitive-algorithm agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] Clues to the Mind: Illusions / Vision
Here is an example of superimposed images where you have to have a predisposed perception - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1m0kCdC7co John From: deepakjnath [mailto:deepakjn...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:03 PM To: agi Subject: [agi] Clues to the Mind: Illusions / Vision http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clofeature=player_embedded feature=player_embedded What we see is not really what you see. Its what you see and what you know you are seeing. The brain superimposes the predicted images to the viewed image to actually have a perception of image. cheers, Deepak agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] How do we hear music
-Original Message- You have all missed one vital point. Music is repeating and it has a symmetry. In dancing (song and dance) moves are repeated in a symmetrical pattern. Question why are we programmed to find symmetry? This question may be more core to AGI than appears at first sight. Chearly an AGI system will have to look for symmetry and do what Hardy described as beautiful maths. Symmetry is at the heart of everything; without symmetry the universe collapses. Intelligence operates over symmetric verses non-symmetric IMO. But everything is ultimately grounded in symmetry. BTW kind of related, was just watching this neat video - the soundtrack needs to be redone though :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs Why does the brain have bi-lateral symmetry I wonder and why is the heart not symmetric? Some researchers say consciousness is both heart and brain. John --- 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] OFF-TOPIC: University of Hong Kong Library
Make sure you study that up YKY :) John From: YKY (Yan King Yin, 甄景贤) [mailto:generic.intellige...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:59 AM To: agi Subject: [agi] OFF-TOPIC: University of Hong Kong Library Today, I went to the HKU main library: =) KY agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Description: https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg| https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ Description: https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png --- 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 image001.jpgimage002.png
RE: [agi] OFF-TOPIC: University of Hong Kong Library
-Original Message- From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] Ok Off topic, but not as far as you might think. YKY has posted in Creating Artificial Intelligence on a collaborative project. It is quite important to know exactly where he is. You see Taiwan uses the classical character set, The People's Republic uses a simplified character set. The classical character set is much more artistic but more difficult to learn thus the simplified is becoming popular. Like a social tendency of K-complexity minimalistic language langour. Less energy expended since less bits required for the symbols. Hong Kong was handed back to China in I think 1997. It is still outside the Great Firewall and (I presume) uses classical characters, although I don't really know. If we are to discuss transliteration schemes, translation and writing Chinese (PRC or Taiwan) on Western keyboards, it is important for us to know. I have just bashed up a Java program to write Arabic. You input Roman Buckwalter and it has an internal conversion table. The same thing could in principle be done for a load of character sets. In Chinese you would have to input two Western keys simultaneously. That can be done. I always wondered - do language translators map from one language to another or do they map to a universal language first. And if there is a universal language what is it or.. what are they? I know HK is outside the Firewall because that is where Google has its proxy server. Is YKY there, do you know? Uhm yes. He's been followed by the government censors into the HK library. They're thinking about sending him to re-education camp for being caught red-handed reading AI4U. John --- 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] New KurzweilAI.net site... with my silly article sillier chatbot ;-p ;) ....
These video/rendered chatbots have huge potential and will be taken in many different directions. They are gradually over time approaching a p-zombie-esque situation. They add multi-modal communication - body/facial language/expression and prosody. So even if the text alone is not too good the simultaneous rending of the multi-channel information adds some sort of legitimacy. Though in these simple cases the bot only takes text as input so much of the communication complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_complexity is running semi half-duplex. John From: The Wizard [mailto:key.unive...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:02 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] New KurzweilAI.net site... with my silly article sillier chatbot ;-p ;) Have you guys talked to the army's artificial intelligence chat bot yet? http://sgtstar.goarmy.com/ActiveAgentUI/Welcome.aspx nothing really special other than the voice sounds really natural.. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Mike Archbold jazzbo...@gmail.com wrote: The concept of citizen science sounds great, Ben -- especially in this age. From my own perspective I feel like my ideas are good but it falls short always of the rigor of a proper scientist, so I don't have that pretense. The internet obviously helps out a lot.The plight of the solitary laborer is better than it used to be, I think, due to the availability of information/research. Mike Archbold On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Check out my article on the H+ Summit http://www.kurzweilai.net/h-summit-harvard-the-rise-of-the-citizen-scientist and also the Ramona4 chatbot that Novamente LLC built for Ray Kurzweil a while back http://www.kurzweilai.net/ramona4/ramona.html It's not AGI at all; but it's pretty funny ;-) -- Ben -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before. --- 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/? 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/? https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Carlos A Mejia Taking life one singularity at a time. www.Transalchemy.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] Solomonoff Induction is Not Universal and Probability is not Prediction
Note: Theorem 1.7.1 There eRectively exists a universal computer. If you copy and paste this declaration the ff gets replaced with a circle cap R :) Not sure how this shows up... John From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:50 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Solomonoff Induction is Not Universal and Probability is not Prediction To make this discussion more concrete, please look at http://www.vetta.org/documents/disSol.pdf Section 2.5 gives a simple version of the proof that Solomonoff induction is a powerful learning algorithm in principle, and Section 2.6 explains why it is not practically useful. What part of that paper do you think is wrong? thx ben On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: If you're going to argue against a mathematical theorem, your argument must be mathematical not verbal. Please explain one of 1) which step in the proof about Solomonoff induction's effectiveness you believe is in error 2) which of the assumptions of this proof you think is inapplicable to real intelligence [apart from the assumption of infinite or massive compute resources] Solomonoff Induction is not a provable Theorem, it is therefore a conjecture. It cannot be computed, it cannot be verified. There are many mathematical theorems that require the use of limits to prove them for example, and I accept those proofs. (Some people might not.) But there is no evidence that Solmonoff Induction would tend toward some limits. Now maybe the conjectured abstraction can be verified through some other means, but I have yet to see an adequate explanation of that in any terms. The idea that I have to answer your challenges using only the terms you specify is noise. Look at 2. What does that say about your Theorem. I am working on 1 but I just said: I haven't yet been able to find a way that could be used to prove that Solomonoff Induction does not do what Matt claims it does. Z What is not clear is that no one has objected to my characterization of the conjecture as I have been able to work it out for myself. It requires an infinite set of infinitely computed probabilities of each infinite string. If this characterization is correct, then Matt has been using the term string ambiguously. As a primary sample space: A particular string. And as a compound sample space: All the possible individual cases of the substring compounded into one. No one has yet to tell of his mathematical experiments of using a Turing simulator to see what a finite iteration of all possible programs of a given length would actually look like. I will finish this later. On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Abram, Solomoff Induction would produce poor predictions if it could be used to compute them. Solomonoff induction is a mathematical, not verbal, construct. Based on the most obvious mapping from the verbal terms you've used above into mathematical definitions in terms of which Solomonoff induction is constructed, the above statement of yours is FALSE. If you're going to argue against a mathematical theorem, your argument must be mathematical not verbal. Please explain one of 1) which step in the proof about Solomonoff induction's effectiveness you believe is in error 2) which of the assumptions of this proof you think is inapplicable to real intelligence [apart from the assumption of infinite or massive compute resources] Otherwise, your statement is in the same category as the statement by the protagonist of Dostoesvky's Notes from the Underground -- I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. ;-) Secondly, since it cannot be computed it is useless. Third, it is not the sort of thing that is useful for AGI in the first place. I agree with these two statements -- ben G agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
RE: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad
An AGI may not really think like we do, it may just execute code. Though I suppose you could program a lot of fuzzy loops and idle speculation, entertaining possibilities, having human think envy.. John From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:21 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad AGI is all about building machines that think, so you don't have to. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com _ From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 9:37:51 AM Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad that's like saying cartography or cartoons could be done a lot faster if they just used cameras - ask Michael to explain what the hand can draw that the camera can't From: Matt Mahoney mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:21 PM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad It could be done a lot faster if the iPad had a camera. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com _ From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 6:28:58 AM Subject: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/artvideo/7865736/Artist-crea tes-masterpiece-on-an-iPad.html McLuhan argues that touch is the central sense - the one that binds the others. He may be right. The i-devices integrate touch into intelligence. agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ --- 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] masterpiece on an iPad
Sounds like everyone would want one, or, one AGI could service us all. And that AGI could do all of the heavy thinking for us. We could become pleasure seeking, fibrillating blobs of flesh and bone suckling on the electronic brains of one big giant AGI. John From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:16 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad An AGI only has to predict your behavior so that it can serve you better by giving you what you want without you asking for it. It is not a copy of your mind. It is a program that can call a function that simulates your mind for some arbitrary purpose determined by its programmer. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com _ From: John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 11:39:23 AM Subject: RE: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad An AGI may not really think like we do, it may just execute code. Though I suppose you could program a lot of fuzzy loops and idle speculation, entertaining possibilities, having human think envy.. John From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:21 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad AGI is all about building machines that think, so you don't have to. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com _ From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 9:37:51 AM Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad that's like saying cartography or cartoons could be done a lot faster if they just used cameras - ask Michael to explain what the hand can draw that the camera can't From: Matt Mahoney mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:21 PM To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad It could be done a lot faster if the iPad had a camera. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com _ From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 6:28:58 AM Subject: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/artvideo/7865736/Artist-crea tes-masterpiece-on-an-iPad.html McLuhan argues that touch is the central sense - the one that binds the others. He may be right. The i-devices integrate touch into intelligence. agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ --- 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] The problem with AGI per Sloman
It's just that something like world hunger is so complex AGI would have to master simpler problems. Also, there are many people and institutions that have solutions to world hunger already and they get ignored. So an AGI would have to get established over a period of time for anyone to really care what it has to say about these types of issues. It could simulate things and come up with solutions but they would not get implemented unless it had power to influence. So in addition AGI would need to know how to make people listen... and maybe obey. IMO I think AGI will take the embedded route - like other types of computer systems - IRS, weather, military, Google, etc. and we become dependent intergenerationally so that it is impossible to survive without. At that point AGI's will have power to influence. John From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 2:19 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman Actually if you are serious about solving a political or social question then what you really need is CRESS http://cress.soc.surrey.ac.uk/web/home . The solution of World Hunger is BTW a political question not a technical one. Hunger is largely due to bad governance in the Third World. How do you get good governance. One way to look at the problem is via CRESS and run simulations in second life. One thing which has in fact struck me in my linguistic researches is this. Google Translate is based on having Gigabytes of bilingual text. The fact that GT is so bad at technical Arabic indicates the absence of such bilingual text. Indeed Israel publishes more papers than the whole of the Islamic world. This is of profound importance for understanding the Middle East. I am sure CRESS would confirm this. AGI would without a doubt approach political questions by examining all the data about the various countries before making a conclusion. AGI would probably be what you would consult for long term solutions. It might not be so good at dealing with something (say) like the Gaza flotilla. In coing to this conclusion I have the University of Surrey and CRESS in mind. - Ian Parker On 26 June 2010 14:36, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] How do you solve World Hunger? Does AGI have to. I think if it is truly G it has to. One way would be to find out what other people had written on the subject and analyse the feasibility of their solutions. Yes, that would show the generality of their AGI theory. Maybe a particular AGI might be able to work with some problems but plateau out on its intelligence for whatever reason and not be able to work on more sophisticated issues. An AGI could be hardcoded perhaps and not improve much, whereas another AGI might improve to where it could tackle vast unknowns at increasing efficiency. There are common components in tackling unknowns, complexity classes for example, but some AGI systems may operate significantly more efficiently and improve. Human brains at some point may plateau without further augmentation though I'm not sure we have come close to what the brain is capable of. John --- 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/? https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] The problem with AGI per Sloman
-Original Message- From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] So an AGI would have to get established over a period of time for anyone to really care what it has to say about these types of issues. It could simulate things and come up with solutions but they would not get implemented unless it had power to influence. So in addition AGI would need to know how to make people listen... and maybe obey. This is CRESS. CRESS would be an accessible option. Yes, I agree, it looks like that. IMO I think AGI will take the embedded route - like other types of computer systems - IRS, weather, military, Google, etc. and we become dependent intergenerationally so that it is impossible to survive without. At that point AGI's will have power to influence. Look! The point is this:- 1) An embedded system is AI not AGI. 2) AGI will arise simply because all embedded systems are themselves searchable. A narrow embedded system, like say a DMV computer network is not an AGI. But that doesn't mean an AGI could not perform that function. In fact, AGI might arise out of these systems needing to become more intelligent. And an AGI system, that same AGI software may be used for a DMV, a space navigation system, IRS, NASDAQ, etc. it could adapt. .. efficiently. There are some systems that tout multi-use now but these are basically very narrow AI. AGI will be able to apply it's intelligence across domains and should be able to put its feelers into all the particular subsystems. Although I foresee some types of standard interfaces perhaps into these narrow AI computer networks; some sort of intelligence standards maybe, or the AGI just hooks into the human interfaces... An AGI could become a God but also it could do some useful stuff like run everyday information systems just like people with brains have to perform menial labor. John --- 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] The problem with AGI per Sloman
-Original Message- From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com] How do you solve World Hunger? Does AGI have to. I think if it is truly G it has to. One way would be to find out what other people had written on the subject and analyse the feasibility of their solutions. Yes, that would show the generality of their AGI theory. Maybe a particular AGI might be able to work with some problems but plateau out on its intelligence for whatever reason and not be able to work on more sophisticated issues. An AGI could be hardcoded perhaps and not improve much, whereas another AGI might improve to where it could tackle vast unknowns at increasing efficiency. There are common components in tackling unknowns, complexity classes for example, but some AGI systems may operate significantly more efficiently and improve. Human brains at some point may plateau without further augmentation though I'm not sure we have come close to what the brain is capable of. John --- 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] The problem with AGI per Sloman
I think some confusion occurs where AGI researchers want to build an artificial person verses artificial general intelligence. An AGI might be just a computational model running in software that can solve problems across domains. An artificial person would be much else in addition to AGI. With intelligence engineering and other engineering that artificial person could be built, or some interface where it appears to be a person. And a huge benefit is in having artificial people to do things that real people do. But pursuing AGI need not have to be pursuit of building artificial people. Also, an AGI need not have to be able to solve ALL problems initially. Coming out and asking why some AGI theory wouldn't be able to figure out how to solve some problem like say, world hunger, I mean WTF is that? John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:33 AM To: agi Subject: [agi] The problem with AGI per Sloman One of the problems of AI researchers is that too often they start off with an inadequate understanding of the problems and believe that solutions are only a few years away. We need an educational system that not only teaches techniques and solutions, but also an understanding of problems and their difficulty - which can come from a broader multi-disciplinary education. That could speed up progress. A. Sloman ( who else keeps saying that?) agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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] A fundamental limit on intelligence?!
-Original Message- From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] My underlying thought here is that we may all be working on the wrong problems. Instead of working on the particular analysis methods (AGI) or self-organization theory (NN), perhaps if someone found a solution to large- network stability, then THAT would show everyone the ways to their respective goals. For a distributed AGI this is a fundamental problem. Difference is that a power grid is such a fixed network. A distributed AGI need not be that fixed, it could lose chunks of itself but grow them out somewhere else. Though a distributed AGI could be required to run as a fixed network. Some traditional telecommunications networks are power grid like. They have a drastic amount of stability and healing functions built-in as have been added over time. Solutions for large-scale network stabilities would vary per network topology, function, etc.. Virtual networks play a large part, this would be related to the network's ability to reconstruct itself meaning knowing how to heal, reroute, optimize and grow.. John --- 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] A fundamental limit on intelligence?!
-Original Message- From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] John, Your comments appear to be addressing reliability, rather than stability... Both can be very interrelated. It can be an oversimplification to separate them, or too impractical/theoretical. On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] My underlying thought here is that we may all be working on the wrong problems. Instead of working on the particular analysis methods (AGI) or self-organization theory (NN), perhaps if someone found a solution to large- network stability, then THAT would show everyone the ways to their respective goals. For a distributed AGI this is a fundamental problem. Difference is that a power grid is such a fixed network. Not really. Switches may connect or disconnect Canada, equipment is constantly failing and being repaired, etc. In any case, this doesn't seem to be related to stability, other than it being a lot easier to analyze a fixed network rather than a variable network. There are a fixed amount of copper wires going into a node. The network is usually a hierarchy of networks. Fixed may be more limiting, sophisticated and kludged rendering it more difficult to deal with so don't assume. A distributed AGI need not be that fixed, it could lose chunks of itself but grow them out somewhere else. Though a distributed AGI could be required to run as a fixed network. Some traditional telecommunications networks are power grid like. They have a drastic amount of stability and healing functions built-in as have been added over time. However, there is no feedback, so stability isn't even a potential issue. No feedback? Remember some traditional telecommunications networks run over copper with power, and are analog; there are huge feedback issues of which many taken care of at a lower signaling level or with external equipment such as echo-cancellers. Again though, there is a hierarchy and mesh of various networks here. I've suggested traditional telecommunications since they are vastly more complex, real-time and many other networks have learned from it. Solutions for large-scale network stabilities would vary per network topology, function, etc.. However, there ARE some universal rules, like the 12db/octave requirement. Really? Do networks such as botnets really care about this? Or does it apply? Virtual networks play a large part, this would be related to the network's ability to reconstruct itself meaning knowing how to heal, reroute, optimize and grow.. Again, this doesn't seem to relate to millisecond-by-millisecond stability. It could be as the virtual network might contain images of the actual network, as an internal model and use this for changing the network structure for a more stable one if there were timing issues... Just some thoughts... John --- 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] A fundamental limit on intelligence?!
-Original Message- From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] Really? Do networks such as botnets really care about this? Or does it apply? Anytime negative feedback can become positive feedback because of delays or phase shifts, this becomes an issue. Many competent EE people fail to see the phase shifting that many decision processes can introduce, e.g. by responding as quickly as possible, finite speed makes finite delays and sharp frequency cutoffs, resulting in instabilities at those frequency cutoff points because of violation of the 12db/octave rule. Of course, this ONLY applies in feedback systems and NOT in forward-only systems, except at the real-world point of feedback, e.g. the bots themselves. Of course, there is the big question of just what it is that is being attenuated in the bowels of an intelligent system. Usually, it is computational delays making sharp frequency-limited attenuation at their response speeds. Every gamer is well aware of the oscillations that long ping times can introduce in people's (and intelligent bot's) behavior. Again, this is basically the same 12db/octave phenomenon. OK, excuse my ignorance on this - a design issue in distributed intelligence is how to split up things amongst the agents. I see it as a hierarchy of virtual networks, with the lowest level being the substrate like IP sockets or something else but most commonly TCP/UDP. The protocols above that need to break up the work, and the knowledge distribution, so the 12db/octave phenomenon must apply there too. I assume any intelligence processing engine must include a harmonic mathematical component since ALL things are basically network, especially intelligence. This might be an overly aggressive assumption but it seems from observance that intelligence/consciousness exhibits some sort of harmonic property, or levels. John --- 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] A fundamental limit on intelligence?!
-Original Message- From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] John, Hmmm, I though that with your EE background, that the 12db/octave would bring back old sophomore-level course work. OK, so you were sick that day. I'll try to fill in the blanks here... Thanks man. Appreciate it. What little EE training I did undergo was brief and painful :) On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:16 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Of course, there is the big question of just what it is that is being attenuated in the bowels of an intelligent system. Usually, it is computational delays making sharp frequency-limited attenuation at their response speeds. Every gamer is well aware of the oscillations that long ping times can introduce in people's (and intelligent bot's) behavior. Again, this is basically the same 12db/octave phenomenon. OK, excuse my ignorance on this - a design issue in distributed intelligence is how to split up things amongst the agents. I see it as a hierarchy of virtual networks, with the lowest level being the substrate like IP sockets or something else but most commonly TCP/UDP. The protocols above that need to break up the work, and the knowledge distribution, so the 12db/octave phenomenon must apply there too. RC low-pass circuits exhibit 6db/octave rolloff and 90 degree phase shifts. 12db/octave corresponds to a 180 degree phase shift. More than 180 degrees and you are into positive feedback. At 24db/octave, you are at maximum positive feedback, which makes great oscillators. The 12 db/octave limit applies to entire loops of components, and not to the individual components. This means that you can put a lot of 1db/octave components together in a big loop and get into trouble. This is commonly encountered in complex analog filter circuits that incorporate 2 or more op- amps in a single feedback loop. Op amps are commonly compensated to have 6db/octave rolloff. Put 2 of them together and you right at the precipice of 12db/octave. Add some passive components that have their own rolloffs, and you are over the edge of stability, and the circuit sits there and oscillates on its own. The usual cure is to replace one of the op-amps with an uncompensated op-amp with ~0db/octave rolloff, until it gets to its maximum frequency, whereupon it has an astronomical rolloff. However, that astronomical rolloff works BECAUSE the loop gain at that frequency is less than 1, so the circuit cannot self-regenerate and oscillate at that frequency. Considering the above and the complexity of neural circuits, it would seem that neural circuits would have to have absolutely flat responses and some central rolloff mechanism, maybe one of the ~200 different types of neurons, or alternatively, would have to be able to custom-tailor their responses to work in concert to roll off at a reasonable rate. A third alternative is discussed below, where you let them go unstable, and actually utilize the instability to achieve some incredible results. I assume any intelligence processing engine must include a harmonic mathematical component I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Perhaps you have discovered the recipe for the secret sauce? Uhm, no I was merely asking your opinion if the 12db/octave phenomena applies to a non-EE based intelligence system. If it could be lifted off of its EE nativeness and applied to ANY network since there are latencies in ALL networks. BUT it sounds as if it is heavily analog circuit based, though there may be some *analogue in an informational network. And this would be represented under a different technical name or formula most likely. since ALL things are basically network, especially intelligence. Most of the things we call networks really just pass information along and do NOT have feedback mechanisms. Power control is an interesting exception, but most of those guys are unable to even carry on an intelligent conversation about the subject. No wonder the power networks have problems. Steve - I actually did work in nuclear power engineering many years ago and remember the Neanderthals involved in that situation believe it or not. But I will say they strongly emphasized practicality and safety verses theoretics and academics. And especially trial and error was something to be frowned upon ... for obvious reasons. IOW, do not rock the boat since there are real reasons for them being that way! This might be an overly aggressive assumption but it seems from observance that intelligence/consciousness exhibits some sort of harmonic property, or levels. You apparently grok something about harmonics that I don't (yet) grok. Please enlighten me. I was wondering if YOU could envision a harmonic correlation between certain electrical circuit phenomenon and intelligence. I've just suspected that there are harmonic properties in intelligence/consciousness. IOW
RE: [agi] just a thought
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Wed, 1/14/09, Christopher Carr cac...@pdx.edu wrote: Problems with IQ notwithstanding, I'm confident that, were my silly IQ of 145 merely doubled, I could convince Dr. Goertzel to give me the majority of his assets, including control of his businesses. And if he were to really meet someone that bright, he would be a fool or super-human not to do so, which he isn't (a fool, that is). First, if you knew what you would do if you were twice as smart, you would already be that smart. Therefore you don't know. Second, you have never even met anyone with an IQ of 290. How do you know what they would do? How do you measure an IQ of 100n? - Ability to remember n times as much? - Ability to learn n times faster? - Ability to solve problems n times faster? - Ability to do the work of n people? - Ability to make n times as much money? - Ability to communicate with n people at once? Please give me an IQ test that measures something that can't be done by n log n people (allowing for some organizational overhead). How do you measure the collective IQ of humanity? Individual IQ's are just a subset. John --- 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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] initial reaction to A2I2's call center product
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:42 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] initial reaction to A2I2's call center product AGI company A2I2 has released a product for automating call center functionality, see... http://www.smartaction.com/index.html I'm diggin' it. Telephony and AGI merge. Either telephony was going to come to AGI or AGI was going to come to telephony. At some point they needed to embrace. Picture it as resource sharing. I'm definitely interested in what going on with this... John --- 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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] initial reaction to A2I2's call center product
From: Bob Mottram [mailto:fuzz...@gmail.com] 2009/1/12 Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org: AGI company A2I2 has released a product for automating call center functionality We value your interest in our AGI related service. If you agree that AGI can have useful applications for call centres, press 1 If our AGI repeatedly misinterprets your speech, because it was trained on an Australian accent where all statements actually sound like questions, press 2 If you want to listen to some Dire Straits track which is quite good the first time but becomes increasingly annoying as it is played over and over again for ten minutes, press 3 If you wish to be directly connected to our superintelligence, which often gives a cryptic reply before hanging up, press 4 For all other enquiries, press 5 repeatedly in an infuriated manner. Well when you press 4 to get to the superintelligence it's still some remote person on the other side of the world but this time they're doing text-to-speech that plays a semi-robotic voice, so technically it's still an Artificial General Intelligence HAR HAR HAR just kidding... John --- 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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
If the agents were p-zombies or just not conscious they would have different motivations. Consciousness has properties of communication protocol and effects inter-agent communication. The idea being it enhances agents' existence and survival. I assume it facilitates collective intelligence, generally. For a multi-agent system with a goal of compression or prediction the agent consciousness would have to be catered. So introducing - Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X to the agents would give them more glue if they expended that consciousness on one another. The communications dynamics of the system would change verses a similar non-conscious multi-agent system. John From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:30 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X ;-) ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
The main point being consciousness effects multi-agent collective intelligence. Theoretically it could be used to improve a goal of compression since compression and intelligence are related though compression seems more narrow, or attempting to compress that is. Either way this is not nonsense. Contemporary compression has yet to get very close to max theoretical so exploring the space of potential mechanisms, especially intelligence related facets like consciousness and multi-agent consciousness can be potential candidates for a new hack? I think though that attempting to get close to max compression is not as related to a goal of an efficient compression... John From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:47 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark John, So if consciousness is important for compression, then I suggest you write two compression programs, one conscious and one not, and see which one compresses better. Otherwise, this is nonsense. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com --- On Tue, 12/30/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: From: John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com Subject: RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 9:46 AM If the agents were p-zombies or just not conscious they would have different motivations. Consciousness has properties of communication protocol and effects inter-agent communication. The idea being it enhances agents' existence and survival. I assume it facilitates collective intelligence, generally. For a multi-agent system with a goal of compression or prediction the agent consciousness would have to be catered. So introducing - Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X to the agents would give them more glue if they expended that consciousness on one another. The communications dynamics of the system would change verses a similar non-conscious multi-agent system. John From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:30 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X ;-) ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com matmaho...@yahoo.com _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Sun, 12/28/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: So maybe for improved genetic algorithms used for obtaining max compression there needs to be a consciousness component in the agents? Just an idea I think there is potential for distributed consciousness inside of command line compressors :) No, consciousness (as the term is commonly used) is the large set of properties of human mental processes that distinguish life from death, such as ability to think, learn, experience, make decisions, take actions, communicate, etc. It is only relevant as an independent concept to agents that have a concept of death and the goal of avoiding it. The only goal of a compressor is to predict the next input symbol. Well that's a question. Does death somehow enhance a lifeforms' collective intelligence? Agents competing over finite resources.. I'm wondering if there were multi-agent evolutionary genetics going on would there be a finite resource of which there would be a relation to the collective goal of predicting the next symbol. Agent knowledge is not only passed on in their genes, it is also passed around to other agents Does agent death hinder advances in intelligence or enhance it? And then would the intelligence collected thus be applicable to the goal. And if so, consciousness may be valuable. John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Agent knowledge is not only passed on in their genes, it is also passed around to other agents Does agent death hinder advances in intelligence or enhance it? And then would the intelligence collected thus be applicable to the goal. And if so, consciousness may be valuable. What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Alternative Cicuitry
Reading this - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23blin.html?ref=science makes me wonder what other circuitry we have that's discouraged from being accepted. John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Well I think consciousness must be some sort of out of band intelligence that bolsters an entity in terms of survival. Intelligence probably stratifies or optimizes in zonal regions of similar environmental complexity, consciousness being one or an overriding out-of-band one... No, consciousness only seems mysterious because human brains are programmed that way. For example, I should logically be able to convince you that pain is just a signal that reduces the probability of you repeating whatever actions immediately preceded it. I can't do that because emotionally you are convinced that pain is real. Emotions can't be learned the way logical facts can, so emotions always win. If you could accept the logical consequences of your brain being just a computer, then you would not pass on your DNA. That's why you can't. BTW the best I can do is believe both that consciousness exists and consciousness does not exist. I realize these positions are inconsistent, and I leave it at that. Consciousness must be a component of intelligence. For example - to pass on DNA for humans, they need to be conscious, or have been up to this point. Humans only live approx. 80 years. Intelligence is really a multi-agent thing, IOW our individual intelligence has come about through the genetic algorithm of humanity, we are really a distributed intelligence and theoretically AGI will be born out of that. So maybe for improved genetic algorithms used for obtaining max compression there needs to be a consciousness component in the agents? Just an idea I think there is potential for distributed consciousness inside of command line compressors :) John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? It doesn't. Why is consciousness important? I was just prodding you on this. Many people on this list talk about the requirements of consciousness for AGI and I was imagining some sort of consciousness in one of your command line compressors :) I've yet to grasp the relationship between intelligence and consciousness though lately I think consciousness may be more of an evolutionary social thing. Home grown digital intelligence, since it is a loner, may not require much consciousness IMO.. What we commonly call consciousness is a large collection of features that distinguish living human brains from dead human brains: ability to think, communicate, perceive, make decisions, learn, move, talk, see, etc. We only attach significance to it because we evolved, like all animals, to fear a large set of things that can kill us. Well I think consciousness must be some sort of out of band intelligence that bolsters an entity in terms of survival. Intelligence probably stratifies or optimizes in zonal regions of similar environmental complexity, consciousness being one or an overriding out-of-band one... I was hoping to discover an elegant theory for AI. It didn't quite work that way. It seems to be a kind of genetic algorithm: make random changes to the code and keep the ones that improve compression. Is this true for most data? For example would PI digit compression attempts result in genetic emergences the same as say compressing environmental noise? I'm just speculating that genetically originated data would require compression avenues of similar algorithmic complexity descriptors, for example PI digit data does not originate genetically so compression attempts would not show genetic emergences as chained as say environmental noise basically I'm asking if you can tell the difference from data that has a genetic origination ingredient verses all non-genetic... John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Fri, 12/26/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of intelligence? Humans are very good at predicting sequences of symbols, e.g. the next word in a text stream. However, humans are not very good at resetting their mental states and deterministically reproducing the exact sequence of learning steps and assignment of probabilities, which is what you need to decompress the data. Fortunately this is not a problem for computers. Human memory storage may be lossy compression and recall may be decompression. Some very rare individuals remember every day of their life in vivid detail, not sure what that means in terms of memory storage. How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? The thing about the word compression is that it is bass-ackwards when talking about intelligence. The word describes kind of an external effect, instead of an internal reconfiguration/re-representation. Also there is a difference between a goal of achieving maximum compression verses a goal of achieving a high efficiency data description. Max compression implies hacks, kludges and a large decompressor. Here is a simple example of human memory compression/decompression - When you think of space, air or emptiness like driving across Kansas, looking at the moon, or waiting idly over a period of time, do you store the emptiness and redundantness or does it get compressed out? The trip across Kansas you remember the starting point, rest stops, and the end, not the full duration. It's a natural compression. In fact I'd say this is a partially lossless compression though more lossy... maybe it is incidental but it is still there. John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? It doesn't. Why is consciousness important? I was just prodding you on this. Many people on this list talk about the requirements of consciousness for AGI and I was imagining some sort of consciousness in one of your command line compressors :) I've yet to grasp the relationship between intelligence and consciousness though lately I think consciousness may be more of an evolutionary social thing. Home grown digital intelligence, since it is a loner, may not require much consciousness IMO.. Max compression implies hacks, kludges and a large decompressor. As I discovered with the large text benchmark. Yep and the behavior of the metrics near max theoretical compression is erratic I think? john --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Relevance of SE in AGI
I've been experimenting with extending OOP to potentially implement functionality that could make a particular AGI design easier to build. The problem with SE is that it brings along much baggage that can totally obscure AGI thinking. Many AGI people and AI people are automatic top of the line software engineers. So the type of SE for AGI is different than typical SE and the challenges are different. I think though that proto-AGI's will emerge from hybrid SE AGI organizations either independent or embedded within larger orgs. Though some AGI principles are so tantalizing close to a potential software implementation you can almost taste it... though these typically turn out to be mirages... John From: Valentina Poletti [mailto:jamwa...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:29 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] Relevance of SE in AGI I have a question for you AGIers.. from your experience as well as from your background, how relevant do you think software engineering is in developing AI software and, in particular AGI software? Just wondering.. does software verification as well as correctness proving serve any use in this field? Or is this something used just for Nasa and critical applications? Valentina _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human- level GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any thing as a thing - and so bring together, associate and compare immensely diverse objects such as, say, an amoeba, a bus, a car, a squid, a poem, a skyscraper, a box, a pencil, a fir tree, the number 1... Our thingy capacity makes us supremely adaptive. It means I can set you a creative problem like go and get me some *thing* to block this doorway [or hole] and you can indeed go and get any of a vastly diverse range of appropriate objects. How are we able to conceive of all these forms as things? Not by any rational means, I suggest, but by the imaginative means of drawing them all mentally or actually as similar adjustable gloops or blobs. Arnheim provides brilliant evidence for this: a young child in his drawings uses circular shapes to represent almost any object at all: a human figure, a house, a car, a book, and even the teeth of a saw, as can be seen in Fig x, a drawing by a five year old. It would be a mistake to say that the child neglects or misrepresents the shape of these objects. Only to adult eyes is he picturing them as round. Actually, intended roundness does not exist before other shapes, such as straightness or angularity are available to the child. At the stage when he begins to draw circles, shape is not yet differentiated. The circle does not stand for roundness but for the more general quality of thingness - that is, for the compactness of a solid object as distinguished from the nondescript ground. [Art and Visual Perception] Even for things and objects the mathematics is inherent. There is plurality, partitioning, grouping, attributes.. interrelatedness. Is a wisp of smoke a thing, or a wave on the ocean, or a sound echoing through the mountains. Is everything one big thing? Perhaps creativity involves zeroing out from the precise definition of things in order to make their interrelatedness less restricting. Can't find a solution to those complex problems when you are stuck in all the details, you can't' rationalize your way out of the rules as there may be a non-local solution or connection that needs to be made. The young child is continuously exercising creativity as things are blobs or circles and creativity combined with trial and error rationalizes things into domains and rules... John --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Should I get a PhD?
Mike, Exercising rational thinking need not force exposure of oneself into being sequestered as a rationalist. And utilizing creativity effectively requires a context in some domain. The domain context typically involves application of rationality. A temporary absence of creativity does not mean it is not valued it just means that you have to instantiate creativity. AGIers may seem like strict rationalists and many are, but many are just instantiating their creativity or putting pure creativity on the backburner. And the dying culture that you are talking about is not true. There is a mass synthesis going on... Simplexity is an interesting concept related to this... Creativity and rationality are not opposed, they typically are out of balance and each has its own deadfalls. This subject is an old argument. And when you split up the two, creativity and rationality, your are over rationalizing them and need to be more creative. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:47 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Should I get a PhD? Ben:I don't think there's any lack of creativity in the AGI world ... and I think it's pretty clear that rationality and creativity work together in all really good scientific work.Creativity is about coming up with new ideas. Rationality is about validating ideas, and deriving their natural consequences. They're complementary, not contradictory, within a healthy scientific thought process. Ben, I radically disagree. Human intelligence involves both creativity and rationality, certainly. But rationality - and the rational systems of logic/maths and formal languages, [on which current AGI depends] - are fundamentally *opposed* to creativity and the generation of new ideas. What I intend to demonstrate in a while is that just about everything that is bad thinking from a rational POV is *good [or potentially good] thinking* from a creative POV (and vice versa). To take a small example, logical fallacies are indeed illogical and irrational - an example of rationally bad thinking. But they are potentially good thinking from a creative POV - useful skills, for example, in a political spinmeister's art. (And you and Pei use them a lot in arguing for your AGI's :)). As someone once said: Creativity is the great mystery at the center of Western culture. We preach order, science, logic and reason. But none of the great accomplishments of science, logic and reason was actually achieved in a scientific, logical, reasonable manner. Every single one must, instead, be attributed to the strange, obscure and definitively irrational process of creative inspiration. Logic and reason are indispensible in the working out ideas, once they have arisen -- but the actual conception of bold, original ideas is something else entirely. Who did say that? Oh yes, it was you :) in your book . As I indicated, it would be better to continue this when I am ready to set out a detailed argument. But for now, it wouldn't hurt to take away the central idea that everything which is good for rationality and specialist intelligence is in fact bad for, or at any rate the inverse of, creativity and general intelligence, (and AGI). It's generally true. [Finding structure and patterns, for example, which you and others make so much of, are normally good only for rational, narrow AI - and *bad* for,,or the inverse of, creativity]. _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
Top posted here: Using your bricks to construct something, you have to construct it within constraints. Constraints is the key word. Whatever bricks you are using they have their own limiting properties. You CANNOT build anything anyway you please. Just by defining bricks you are already applying rationalist hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract bricks have a limiting rationalist inducing structure... Maybe bricks are too rationalist, I want to use gloops to build creative things that are impossible to build with bricks. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though *not* formal) form: rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal bricks of a building) with rationality, you reason according to predetermined blueprints (or programs) of buildings - you infer that if this is a building in such and such a style, then this brick will have to go here and that brick will have to go there - everything follows. The bricks have to go together in certain ways. The links in any chain or structure of logical reasoning are rigid. with creativity, you reason *without* precise blueprints - you can put bricks together in any way you like, subject to the constraints that they must connect with and support each other. - and you start with only a rough idea, at best, of the end result/ building you want. (Build me a skyscraper that's radically different from anything ever built), rationality in any given situation and with any given, rational problem, can have only one result.Convergent construction. creativity in any given situation and with any creative, non-rational problem, can have an infinity of results. Divergent construction. Spot the difference? Rationality says bricks build brick buildings. It follows. Creativity says puh-lease, how boring. It may be rational and necessary on one level, but it's not necessary at all on a deeper level With a possible infinity of ways to put bricks together, we can always build something radically different. http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/Christophe/Christophe_4661b649bdc87.jpg (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). You can't arrive at brick art or any art or any creative work or even the simplest form of everyday creativity by rationality/logic/deduction, induction , abduction, transduction et al. (What's the logical solution to freeing up bank lending right now? Or seducing that woman over there? Think about it.) AGI is about creativity. Building without blueprints. (Or hidden structures). Just rough ideas and outlines. --- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction
From: Trent Waddington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it is stuck in the eye with a needle (the standard way to draw blood) even though it squirms just like a human would. It is surprisingly easy to modify one's ethics to feel this way, as proven by the Milgram experiments and Nazi war crime trials. I'm sure you're not meaning to suggest that scientists commonly rationalize in this way, nor that they are all Nazi war criminals for experimenting on animals. I feel the need to remind people that animal rights is a fringe movement that does not represent the views of the majority. We experiment on animals because the benefits, to humans, are considered worthwhile. I like animals. And I like the idea of coming up with cures to diseases and testing them on animals first. In college my biologist roommate protested the torture of fruit flies. My son has starting playing video games where you shoot, zapp and chemically immolate the opponent, so I need to explain to him that those bad guys are not conscious...yet. I don't know if there are guidelines. Humans, being the rulers of planet, appear as godlike beings to other conscious inhabitants. That brings responsibility. So when we start coming up with AI stuff in the lab that attains certain levels of consciousness we have to know what consciousness is in order to govern our behavior. And naturally if some superintelligent space alien or rogue interstellar AI encounters us and decides that we are a culinary delicacy and wants to grow us enmass economically, we hope that some respect is given eh? Reminds me of hearing that some farms are experimenting with growing chickens w/o heads. Animal rights may be more than just a fringe movement. Kind of like Mike - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it can be found at: http://susaro.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf Um... this is a model of consciousness. One way of looking at it. Whether or not it is comprehensive enough, not sure, this irreducible indeterminacy. But after reading the paper a couple times I get what you are trying to describe. It's part of an essence of consciousness but not sure if it enough. Kind of reminds me of Curly's view of consciousness - I'm trying to think but nothing happens! John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Three things. First, David Chalmers is considered one of the world's foremost researchers in the consciousness field (he is certainly now the most celebrated). He has read the argument presented in my paper, and he has discussed it with me. He understood all of it, and he does not share any of your concerns, nor anything remotely like your concerns. He had one single reservation, on a technical point, but when I explained my answer, he thought it interesting and novel, and possibly quite valid. Second, the remainder of your comments below are not coherent enough to be answerable, and it is not my job to walk you through the basics of this field. Third, about your digression: gravity does not escape from black holes, because gravity is just the curvature of spacetime. The other things that cannot escape from black holes are not forces. I will not be replying to any further messages from you because you are wasting my time. I read this paper several times and still have trouble holding the model that you describe in my head as it fades quickly and then there is a just a memory of it (recursive ADD?). I'm not up on the latest consciousness research but still somewhat understand what is going on there. Your paper is a nice and terse description but to get others to understand the highlighted entity that you are trying to describe may be easier done with more diagrams. When I kind of got it for a second it did appear quantitative, like mathematically describable. I find it hard to believe though that others have not put it this way, I mean doesn't Hofstadter talk about this in his books, in an unacademical fashion? Also Edward's critique is very well expressed and thoughtful. Just blowing him off like that is undeserving. John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
From: Jiri Jelinek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:07 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there are many computer systems now, domain specific intelligent ones where their life is more important than mine. Some would say that the battle is already lost. For now, it's not really your life (or interest) vs the system's life (or interest). It's rather your life (or interest) vs lives (or interests) of people the system protects/supports. Our machines still work for humans. At least it still seems to be the case ;-)). If we are stupid enough to develop very powerful machines without equally powerful safety controls then we (just like many other species) are due for extinction for adaptability limitations. It is where the interests of others is more valuable than an individual's life. Ancient Rome had the entertainment interests of the masses at a higher value than those being devoured by lions in the arena. I would say that computers and machines interests today in many cases now are of similar relational circumstances in some cases. Our herd mentality makes it easy for rights to be taken away and at the same time it is accepted and defended as necessary and an improvement. Example - anonymity and privacy = gone. Sounds paranoiacal but there are many that agree on this. It is an icky subject, easy to ignore, and perhaps something that hinders technological progression. John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
From: Jiri Jelinek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:41 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is it really necessary for an AGI to be conscious? Depends on how you define it. If you think it's about feelings/qualia then - no - you don't need that [potentially dangerous] crap + we don't know how to implement it anyway. If you view it as high-level built-in response mechanism (which is supported by feelings in our brain but can/should be done differently in AGI) then yes - you practically (but not necessarily theoretically) need something like that for performance. If you are concerned about self-awareness/consciousness then note that AGI can demonstrate general problem solving without knowing anything about itself (and about many other particular concepts). The AGI just should be able to learn new concepts (including self), though I think some built-in support makes sense in this particular case. BTW for the purpose of my AGI RD I defined self-awareness as a use of an internal representation (IR) of self, where the IR is linked to real features of the system. Nothing terribly complicated or mysterious about that. Yes, I agree that problem solving can be performed without self-awareness and I believe that actions involving rich intelligence need not require consciousness. But yes it all depends on how you define consciousness. It can be argued that a rock is conscious. Doesn't that complicate things? it does Shouldn't the machines/computers be slaves to man? They should and it shouldn't be viewed negatively. It's nothing more than a smart tool. Changing that would be a big mistake IMO. Yup when you need to scuttle the spaceship and HAL is having issues with that uhm it would be better for HAL to understand that he is expendable. Though there are AGI applications that would involve humans building close interpersonal relationships for various reasons. I mean having that AGI psychotherapist could be useful :) And advanced post-Singularity AGI applications, yes, I suppose machine consciousness and consciousness uploading and mixing, ya, in the meantime though for pre-Singularity design and study I don't see machine consciousness as required, human equiv that is. Though I do have a fuzzy view of how I would design a consciousness. Or will they be equal/superior. Rocks are superior to us in being hard. Cars are superior to us when it comes to running fast. AGIs will be superior to us when it comes to problem solving. So what? Equal/superior in whatever - who cares as long as we can progress safely enjoy life - which is what our tools (including AGI) are being designed to help us with. Superior meaning - if it was me or AGI-X due to limited resources does AGI-X get to live and I am expendable. Unfortunately there are many computer systems now, domain specific intelligent ones where their life is more important than mine. Some would say that the battle is already lost. John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I thought what he said was a good description more or less. Out of 600 millions years there may be only a fraction of that which is an improvement but it's still there. How do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any other being is conscious? The problem is, you have to nail down exactly what you *mean* by the word conscious before you start asking questions or making statements. Once you start reading about and thinking about all the attempts that have been made to get specific about it, some interesting new answers to simple questions like this begin to emerge. What I am fighting here is a tendency for some people to use wave-of-the-hand definitions that only capture a fraction of a percent of the real meaning of the term. And sometimes not even that. I see consciousness as a handle to a system. Consciousness is and is not a unit. Being a system it has components. And the word consciousness may be semi-inclusive or over-inclusive. As well consciousness can be descripted as an ether type thing also but consciousness as a system is more applicable here I think. I would be interested in how one goes about proving that another being is conscious. I can imagine definitions of consciousness that would prove that. Somehow though the mystery is worthy of perpetuation. One of the main conclusions of the paper I am writing now is that you will (almost certainly) have no choice in the matter, because a sufficiently powerful type of AGI will be conscious whether you like it or not. Uhm what is sufficiently mean here? Consciousness may require some intelligence but I think that intelligence need only possess absolute minimalistic consciousness. Definitions, definitions. Is there someone who has come up with a consciousness system described quantitatively instead of just fussy word descriptions? The question of slavery is completely orthogonal. Yes and no. It's related. I just want things to be taken care of and no issues. Consciousness brings issues. Intelligence and consciousness are separate. Back to my first paragraph above: until you have thought carefully about what you mean by consciousness, and have figured out where it comes from, you can't really make a definitive statement like that, surely? Have deeply thought about it. They are not mutually exclusive nor mostly the same. With both I assume calculations involving resource processing and space time dynamics. Consciousness needs to be broken up into different kinds of consciousness with interrelatedness between. Intelligence has less complexity than consciousness. It is a semi-system. Consciousness can be evoked using intelligence. Intelligence can be spurred with consciousness. They both interoperate but intelligence can be distilled out of an existing conscio-intelligence. And they can facilitate each other yet hinder each other. We'd really have to get into the math to get commitant on it. And besides, the wanting to have things taken care of bit is a separate issue. That is not a problem, either way. Heh. John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John LaMuth wrote: Reality check *** Consciousness is an emergent spectrum of subjectivity spanning 600 mill. years of evolution involving mega-trillions of competing organisms, probably selecting for obscure quantum effects/efficiencies Our puny engineering/coding efforts could never approach this - not even in a million years. An outwardly pragmatic language simulation, however, is very do-able. John LaMuth It is not. And we can. I thought what he said was a good description more or less. Out of 600 millions years there may be only a fraction of that which is an improvement but it's still there. How do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any other being is conscious? At some point you have to trust that others are conscious, in the same species, you bring them into your recursive loop of consciousness component mix. A primary component of consciousness is a self definition. Conscious experience is unique to the possessor. It is more than a belief that the possessor herself is conscious but others who appear conscious may be just that, appearing to be conscious. Though at some point there is enough feedback between individuals and/or a group to share consciousness experience. Still though, is it really necessary for an AGI to be conscious? Except for delivering warm fuzzies to the creators? Doesn't that complicate things? Shouldn't the machines/computers be slaves to man? Or will they be equal/superior. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. I just want things to be taken care of and no issues. Consciousness brings issues. Intelligence and consciousness are separate. John --- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] True, we can't explain why the human brain needs 10^15 synapses to store 10^9 bits of long term memory (Landauer's estimate). Typical neural networks store 0.15 to 0.25 bits per synapse. This study - http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/CSJarchive/1986v10/i04/p0477p0493/MAIN.PDF is just throwing a dart at the wall. You'd need something more real life instead of word and picture recall calculations to arrive at a number even close to actual. I estimate a language model with 10^9 bits of complexity could be implemented using 10^9 to 10^10 synapses. However, time complexity is hard to estimate. A naive implementation would need around 10^18 to 10^19 operations to train on 1 GB of text. However this could be sped up significantly if only a small fraction of neurons are active at any time. Just looking at the speed/memory/accuracy tradeoffs of various models at http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html (the 2 graphs below the main table), it seems that memory is more of a limitation than CPU speed. A real time language model would be allowed 10-20 years. I'm sorry, what are those 2 graphs indicating? To get a smaller compressed size more running memory is needed? That y-axis is a compressor runtime memory limit specified by a command line switch or is it just what the compressor consumes for the data to be compressed? John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] the universe is computable [Was: Occam's Razor and its abuse]
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't compute the universe within this universe because the computation would have to include itself. Exactly. That is why our model of physics must be probabilistic (quantum mechanics). I'd venture to say that ANY computation is an estimation unless the computation is itself. To compute the universe you could estimate it but that computation is an estimation unless the computation is the universe. Thus the universe itself IS an exact computation just as a chair for example is an exact computation existing uniquely as itself. Any other computation of that chair is an estimation. IOW a computation is itself unless it is an approximation of something else, it's somewhere between being partially exact or a partially exact anti-representation. A computation mimicking another same computation would be partially exact taking time and space into account. Though there may be some subatomic symmetric simultaneity that violates what I'm saying above not sure. Also it's early in the morning and I'm actually just blabbing here so this all may be relatively inexact :) John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more powerful than a PC. The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect brains. Maybe something can be biogenetically engineered :) Somehow wire billions of insect brains together modified in such a way that they are peer 2 peer and emerge a greater intelligence :) Or molecular computing. The Earth has about 10^37 bits of data encoded in DNA*. Evolution executes a parallel algorithm that runs at 10^33 operations per second**. This far exceeds the 10^25 bits of memory and 10^27 OPS needed to simulate all the human brains on Earth as neural networks***. *Human DNA has 6 x 10^9 base pairs (diploid count) at 2 bits each ~ 10^10 bits. The human body has ~ 10^14 cells = 10^24 bits. There are ~ 10^10 humans ~ 10^34 bits. Humans make up 0.1% of the biomass ~ 10^37 bits. **Cell replication ranges from 20 minutes in bacteria to ~ 1 year in human tissue. Assume 10^-4 replications per second on average ~ 10^33 OPS. The figure would be much higher if you include RNA and protein synthesis. ***Assume 10^15 synapses per brain at 1 bit each and 10 ms resolution times 10^10 humans. I agree on the molecular computing. The resources are there. Not sure though how one would go about calculating the evolution parallel algorithm OPS, it would be different than just cell reproduction magnitude. Still though I don't agree on your initial numbers estimate for AGI. A bit high perhaps? Your numbers may be able to be trimmed down based on refined assumptions. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like this, anybody who really thinks that and has some real software in mind has no excuse. They can get whatever cpu horsepower they need, I'm pretty sure even to the theoretical levels predicted by, say, Moravec and Kurzweil. It takes away that particular excuse. Indeed, that's been the most important effect of computing power limitations. It's not that we've ever been able to say this program would do great things, if only we had the hardware to run it. It's that we learn to flinch away from the good designs, the workable approaches, because they won't fit on the single cheap beige box we have on our desks. The key benefit of cloud computing is one that can be had before the first line of code is written: don't think in terms of how your design will run on one box, think in terms of how it will run on 10,000. My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate. Even if you took the grid substrate that the cloud is running on and hand tweaked your app to utilize that I suspect that it would still be way less efficient than a 100% native written. The advantage of using cloud or grid substrate is that it makes writing the application much easier. Hand coded distributed applications take a particular expertise to develop. Eliminating that helps from a bootstrap perspective. Also when you have control over your server you can manipulate topology. It is possible to enhance inter-server communication by creating custom physical and virtual network topology. I assume as grid and cloud computing matures the software substrate will become more efficient and adaptable to the application. To be sure though on the efficiencies, some tests would need to be run. Unless someone here understands cloud/grid enough to know what the deal is or has already run tests. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:18 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence Unless you are going to hand-wire some special processor-to-processor interconnect fabric, this seems probably not to be true... ben g On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate. Why would you suspect that? My understanding of cloud computing is that the servers are perfectly ordinary Linux boxes, with perfectly ordinary network connections, it's just that you rent them instead of buying them. Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app should take the topology into account. Just creating an app and uploading it to a cloud and assuming the cloud will be smart enough to figure it out? There's gonna be layers there man and resource task switching with other customers. Cloud substrate software is probably good but not that good. You could understand how the cloud processes and structure your app towards that. I have no idea how these clouds are implemented. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app should take the topology into account. That would be a very bad idea, even if there were no such thing as cloud computing. Even if there was a significant efficiency gain to be had that way (which there isn't, in the usual scenario where you're talking about ethernet not some custom grid fabric), as soon as the next hardware purchase comes along, the design over which you sweated so hard is now useless or worse than useless. No, you don't lock it into an instance in time. You make it selectively scalable. When your app or your application's resources span more than one machine you need to organize that. The choice on how you do so effects execution efficiency. You could have an app now that needs 10 machines to run and 5 years from now will run on one machine yes. That is true. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more powerful than a PC. The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect brains. Maybe something can be biogenetically engineered :) Somehow wire billions of insect brains together modified in such a way that they are peer 2 peer and emerge a greater intelligence :) John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] the universe is computable [Was: Occam's Razor and its abuse]
You can't compute the universe within this universe because the computation would have to include itself. Also there's not enough energy to power the computation. But if the universe is not what we think it is, perhaps it is computable since all kinds of assumptions are made about it, structurally and so forth. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Bob Mottram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Beware of putting too much stuff into the cloud. Especially in the current economic climate clouds could disappear without notice (i.e. unrecoverable data loss). Also, depending upon terms and conditions any data which you put into the cloud may not legally be owned by you, even if you created it. For private commercial clouds this is true. But imagine a public self-healing cloud where it is somewhat self-regulated and self-organized. Though commercial clouds could have some sort of inter-cloud virtual backbone that they subscribe to. So Company A goes bankrupt but it's cloud is offloaded into the backbone and absorbed by another cloud. Micro payments migrate with the cloud. Ya right like that could ever happen. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] On programming languages
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Somewhat similarly, I've done coding on Windows before, but I dislike the operating system quite a lot, so in general I try to avoid any projects where I have to use it. However, if I found some AGI project that I thought were more promising than OpenCog/Novamente on the level of algorithms, philosophy-of-mind and structures ... and, egads, this project ran only on Windows ... I would certainly not hesitate to join that project, even though my feeling is that any serious large-scale software project based exclusively on Windows is going to be seriously impaired by its OS choice... In short, I just don't think these issues are **all that** important. They're important, but having the right AGI design is far, far more so. People seem to debate programming languages and OS's endlessly, and this list is no exception. There are smart people on multiple sides of these debates. To make progress on AGI, you just gotta make *some* reasonable choice and start building ... there's no choice that's going to please everyone, since this stuff is so contentious... Programming languages - people have their own particulars - standards are interrelating. XML for example. Uhm math is the ultimate standard. Can you think of a better one? English is not standard. NLP is a gluttonous mix of rigarmarole. So Lojban... ya... the symbolistic expenditure has to be defined. So a map to theoretical Language A from X-lish or whatever. Kind of like music rewritten for more of a distance approach from humanistic portrayal. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
Just an idea - not sure if it would work or not - 3 lists: [AGI-1], [AGI-2], [AGI-3]. Sub-content is determined by the posters themselves. Same amount of emails initially but partitioned up. Wonder what would happen? John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As Ben has pointed out language understanding is useful to teach AGI. But if we use the domain of mathematics we can teach AGI by formal expressions more easily and we understand these expressions as well. - Matthias That is not clear -- no human has learned math that way. We learn math via a combination of math, human language, and physical metaphors... And, the specific region of math-space that humans have explored, is strongly biased toward those kinds of math that can be understood via analogy to physical and linguistic experience I suggest that the best way for humans to teach an AGI math is via first giving that AGI embodied, linguistic experience ;-) See Lakoff and Nunez, Where Mathematics Comes From, for related arguments. That's one of the few books that I have purchased. It's good for showing the human experience with math, how our version of math is like a scratchpad of systematic conceptual analogies. Fine. But the book doesn't really open it up it kinda just talks about math being a product of us. I wanted more. But the collection of math created by humans over time is the best that evolution has to offer. One human mind can barely comprehend a small subset of it. When you talk about teaching an AGI math it throws me off because using our math from the getgo, giving the AGI that to start off with, IMO, throws it over an initial humongous computational energy threshold that it would have to get around someway or another if it didn't start out with it. I suppose you may be building a substrate than can be taught math and then take it from there. The substrate being AGI hypergraphs and operating agents on them. Why not build the math into the substrate from the start? Teaching AGI sounds so laborious, it should just learn. Unless you are talking about RSI'ing the math into the core John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] NEWS: Scientist develops programme to understand alien languages
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... even an alien language far removed from any on Earth is likely to have recognisable patterns that could help reveal how intelligent the life forms are. This is true unless the alien life form existed in mostly order and communicated via the absence of order, IOW it's language evolved towards randomness. Then we might have difficulties understanding it due to computational expense. Kind of like a natural encryption. --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] First issue of H+ magazine ... http://hplusmagazine.com/
This is cool it's kind of like a combo of Omni, a desktop publishing fanzine with 3DSMax cover page, and randomly gathered techno tidbits all encapsulated in a secure PDF. The skin phone is neat and the super imposition eye contact lens by U-Dub has value. I wonder where they got that idea from, superimposition glasses may be easier to interface with, I mean how do you get a wireless processor and antennae into the lens? John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
From: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Honestly, if the idea is to wave our hands at one another's ideas then let's at least see something on the table. I'm happy to discuss my work with natural language parsing and mood evaluation for low-bandwidth human mimicry, for instance, because it has amounted to thousands of lines of occasionally-fungible code thus far. It's not on sourceforge because it's still a mess but I'll pastebin it if you ask. What's the gist of the code? Sounds like chat-bot but I just know there is more to it. I don't understand how people wallow in their theories for so long that they become a matter of dogma, with the need for proof removed, and the urgency of producing and testing an implementation subverted by smugness and egotism. The people here worth listening to don't have to make excuses. They can show their work. True though. But if your theory is good enough the first person usually sold on it is yourself. And then you must become an ardent follower. I see a lot of evasiveness and circular arguments going on, where people are seeking some kind of theoretical high-ground without giving away anything that could bolster another theory. It's time-wastingly self-interested. We won't achieve consensus through half-explained denials and reversals. This list isn't a battle of theorems for supremacy. It is for collaboration. Yep. Inter connecting at knowledge junctions could be conducive to more civil collaborative effort. At some point compromises must be made and hands shaken. Minds melded instead of heads banged :) My 2 cents. The internet archive seems to have shed about half the material I produced since the nineties, so I do apologize for being so pissed off _ Did the global brain forget the low latency long term memory of you? Perhaps it's just compressed off into some lower latency subsystem. There has to be more than one internet archive, honestly. The existing one does have it's shortcomings. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: AW: Defining AGI (was Re: AW: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list)
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In my opinion, the domain of software development is far too ambitious for the first AGI. Software development is not a closed domain. The AGI will need at least knowledge about the domain of the problems for which the AGI shall write a program. The English interface is nice but today it is just a dream. An English interface is not needed for a proof of concept for first AGI. So why to make the problem harder as it already is? English is just the gel that the knowledge is embedded in. Sorting out that format is bang for the buck. And it is just symbology as math is symbology, or representation. The domain of mathematics is closed but can be extended by adding more and more definitions and axioms which are very compact. The interface could be very simple. And thus you can mainly concentrate to build the kernel AGI algorithm. Mathematics effectively is just another gel that the knowledge is stored in. It's a representation of (some other wierd physics stuff that I won't bring up). I think I can say that, that math is just an instantiation of something other. Unless the actual math symbology is the math and not what it represents. Either way, all will be represented in binary, for software or an electronics based AGI. How can you get away from the coupling of math and software? Unless there is some REAL special sauce like some analog based hyperbrid. Loosemore would say that the coupling breaks somehow at complexity regions. And I think that the representation of reality has to include those. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically on **how to make AGI work**. Potentially, there could be another list, something like agi- philosophy, devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other discussions about whether AGI is possible or not. I am not sure whether I feel like running that other list ... and even if I ran it, I might not bother to read it very often. I'm interested in new, substantial ideas related to the in-principle possibility of AGI, but not interested at all in endless philosophical arguments over various peoples' intuitions in this regard. I'd go for 2 lists. Sometimes after working intensely on something concrete and specific one wants to step back and theorize. And then particular AGI approaches may be going down the wrong trail and need to step back and look at things from a different perspective. Also there are probably many people that wish to speak up on various topics but are silent due to them not wanting to clutter the main AGI list. I would guess that there are some valuable contributions that need to be made but are not directly related to some particular well-defined applicable subject. You could almost do 3, AGI engineering, science and philosophy. We are all well aware of the philosophical directions the list takes though I see the science and engineering getting a bit too intertwined as well. Although with this sort of thing it's hard to avoid. Even so, with all this the messages in the one list still are grouped by subject... I mean people can parse. But to simplify moderation and organization, etc.. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
From: BillK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree. I support more type 1 discussions. I have felt for some time that an awful lot of time-wasting has been going on here. I think this list should mostly be for computer tech discussion about methods of achieving specific results on the path(s) to AGI. I agree that there should be a place for philosophical discussion, either on a separate list, or uniquely identified in the Subject so that technicians can filter off such discussions. Some people may need to discuss philosophic alternative paths to AGI, to help clarify their thoughts. But if so, they are probably many years away from producing working code and might be hindering others who are further down the path of their own design. Two lists are probably best. Then if technicians want a break from coding, they can dip into the philosophy list, to offer advice or maybe find new ideas to play with. And, as John said. it would save on moderation time. Yes and someone else could be moderator for type 2 list, someone could be nominated. Then Ben could be the super mod and reign in when he has a bad day :) I nominate Tinter. Just kidding. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
From: Terren Suydam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a publicly accessible forum with searchable archives... you don't necessarily have to be subscribed and inundated to find those nuggets. I don't know any funding decision makers myself, but if I were in control of a budget I'd be using every resource at my disposal to clarify my decision. If I were considering Novamente for example I'd be looking for exactly the kind of exchanges you and Richard Loosemore (for example) have had on the list, to gain a better understanding of possible criticism, and because others may be able to articulate such criticism far better than me. Obviously the same goes for anyone else on the list who would look for funding... I'd want to see you defend your ideas, especially in the absence of peer-reviewed journals (something the JAGI hopes to remedy obv). Unfortunately there's going to be funding thrown at AGI that has nothing to do with any sort of great theory or concrete engineering plans. Software and technology funding many times doesn't work that way. It's rather arbitrary. I hope the right people get the right opportunities. John --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Dangerous Knowledge - Update
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry, but in my drug-addled state I gave the wrong URI for the Dangerous Knowledge videos on YouTube. The one I gave was just to the first part of the Cantor segment. All of the segments can be reached from the link below. You can recreate this link by searching, in YouTube, on the key words Dangerous Knowledge. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dangerous+Knowledgesearch_t ype=aq=-1oq= Just watched this video and I like the latter end of part 7 where they show Godel's normal neat paperwork and then the devoid sketchy papers where he was trying to figure out the continuum hypothesis. And then in his study when his hands started getting all stretched out and warped. Let this be a lesson to people, working on the continuum hypothesis, incompleteness and potentially even AGI is dangerous to your health and could result in insanity or death. This should only be performed by qualified and highly trained individuals, unless of course you make a pact with Faust. John --- 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] Artificial humor
From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious or one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me seriously That is why I segregated analogical humor seperately (from routine seriousness) in my 2nd US patent 7236963 www.emotionchip.net This specialized meta-order-type of disqualification is built directly into the AGI schematics ... I realize that proprietary patents have acquired a bad cachet, but should not necessarily be ignored Nice patent. I can just imagine the look on the patent clerk's face when that one came across the desk. John --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sun, 9/7/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment) To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 9:15 AM From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sat, 9/6/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing storage bits. Not the way I use it. The goal is to predict what the environment will do next. Lossless compression is a way of measuring how well we are doing. Predicting the environment in order to determine which data to pack where, thus achieving higher compression ratio. Or compression as an integral part of prediction? Some types of prediction are inherently compressed I suppose. Predicting the environment to maximize reward. Hutter proved that universal intelligence is a compression problem. The optimal behavior of an AIXI agent is to guess the shortest program consistent with observation so far. That's algorithmic compression. Oh I see. Guessing shortest program = compression. OK right. But yeah like Pei said the word compression is misleading. It implies a reduction where you are actually increasing understanding :) John --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sat, 9/6/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing storage bits. Not the way I use it. The goal is to predict what the environment will do next. Lossless compression is a way of measuring how well we are doing. Predicting the environment in order to determine which data to pack where, thus achieving higher compression ratio. Or compression as an integral part of prediction? Some types of prediction are inherently compressed I suppose. John --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
Thinking out loud here as I find the relationship between compression and intelligence interesting: Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing storage bits. Intelligence has coincidental compression. There is resource management there. But I do think that it is not ONLY coincidental. Knowledge has structure which can be organized and naturally can collapse into a lower complexity storage state. Things have order, based on physics and other mathematical relationships. The relationship between compression and stored knowledge and intelligence is intriguing. But knowledge can be compressed inefficiently to where it inhibits extraction and other operations so there are differences with compression and intelligence related to computational expense. Optimal intelligence would have a variational compression structure IOW some stuff needs fast access time with minimal decompression resource expenditure and other stuff has high storage priority but computational expense and access time are not a priority. And then when you say the word compression there is a complicity of utility. The result of a compressor that has general intelligence still has a goal of reducing storage bits. I think that compression can be a byproduct of the stored knowledge created by a general intelligence. But if you have a compressor with general intelligence built in and you assign it a goal of taking input data and reducing the storage space it still may result in a series of hacks because that may be the best way of accomplishing that goal. Sure there may be some new undiscovered hacks that require general intelligence to uncover. And a compressor that is generally intelligent may produce more rich lossily compressed data from varied sources. The best lossy compressor is probably generally intelligent. They are very similar as you indicate... but when you start getting real lossy, when you start asking questions from your lossy compressed data that are not related to just the uncompressed input there is a difference there. Compression itself is just one dimensional. Intelligence is multi. John -Original Message- From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:39 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment) --- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like to many existing AI works, my disagreement with you is not that much on the solution you proposed (I can see the value), but on the problem you specified as the goal of AI. For example, I have no doubt about the theoretical and practical values of compression, but don't think it has much to do with intelligence. In http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html I explain why text compression is an AI problem. To summarize, if you know the probability distribution of text, then you can compute P(A|Q) for any question Q and answer A to pass the Turing test. Compression allows you to precisely measure the accuracy of your estimate of P. Compression (actually, word perplexity) has been used since the early 1990's to measure the quality of language models for speech recognition, since it correlates well with word error rate. The purpose of this work is not to solve general intelligence, such as the universal intelligence proposed by Legg and Hutter [1]. That is not computable, so you have to make some arbitrary choice with regard to test environments about what problems you are going to solve. I believe the goal of AGI should be to do useful work for humans, so I am making a not so arbitrary choice to solve a problem that is central to what most people regard as useful intelligence. I had hoped that my work would lead to an elegant theory of AI, but that hasn't been the case. Rather, the best compression programs were developed as a series of thousands of hacks and tweaks, e.g. change a 4 to a 5 because it gives 0.002% better compression on the benchmark. The result is an opaque mess. I guess I should have seen it coming, since it is predicted by information theory (e.g. [2]). Nevertheless the architectures of the best text compressors are consistent with cognitive development models, i.e. phoneme (or letter) sequences - lexical - semantics - syntax, which are themselves consistent with layered neural architectures. I already described a neural semantic model in my last post. I also did work supporting Hutchens and Alder showing that lexical models can be learned from n- gram statistics, consistent with the observation that babies learn the rules for segmenting continuous speech before they learn any words [3]. I agree it should also be clear that semantics is learned before grammar, contrary to the way artificial languages are processed. Grammar requires semantics, but not the other way around. Search engines work using semantics only. Yet we cannot parse sentences like I ate pizza with Bob, I
RE: [agi] Groundless reasoning -- Chinese Room
From: Harry Chesley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Searle's Chinese Room argument is one of those things that makes me wonder if I'm living in the same (real or virtual) reality as everyone else. Everyone seems to take it very seriously, but to me, it seems like a transparently meaningless argument. I think that the Chinese Room argument is an AI philosophical anachronistic meme that is embedded in the AI community and promulgated by monotonous drone-like repetitivity. Whenever I hear it I'm like let me go read up on that for the n'th time and after reading I'm like WTF are they talking about!?!? Is that one the grand philosophical hang-ups in AI thinking? I wish I had a mega-meme expulsion cannon and could expunge that mental knot of twisted AI arterialsclerosis. John --- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Any further comments from lurkers??? [WAS do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?]
Well, even though there was bloodshed, Edward was right on slamming Richard on the complex systems issue. This issue needs to be vetted, sorted out, either laid to rest or incorporated into other's ideas. Perhaps in some of the scientist's minds it has been laid to rest. In my mind it is there, nagging me for further inspection in hopes of good riddance or some serious code writing. As far as politeness, yeah people need to be civil, but passionate at the same time. I always wondered about harsh invective behavior and then a friend of mine asked me Why do cactus have thorns? and that answered the question. John --- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [agi] Patterns and Automata Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:26:43 -0600 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acjqd2/upUdwObXiT+Wx0QccpzkjsgBCQ2zQ Content-Language: en-us Well I have lots and lots of related mathematics paper references covering parts and pieces but nothing that shows how to build the full system. Here is a paper that talks a little about forest automata - http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~bojan/papers/forest.pdf For morphisms - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphism So.. nothing on the related cognition engineering though... but expanding on graph isomorphism detection theory leads to the beginnings of that. John -Original Message- From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:46 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Patterns and Automata Can you cite any papers related to the approach you're attempting? I do not know anything about morphism detection, morphism forests, etc. Thanks, Abram On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:03 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No, not especially familiar, but it sounds interesting. Personally I am interested in learning formal grammars to describe data, and there are well-established equivalences between grammars and automata, so the approaches are somewhat compatible. According to wikipedia, semiautomata have no output, so you cannot be using them as a generative model, but they also lack accept-states, so you can't be using them as recognition models, either. How are you using them? Hi Abram, More of recognizing them verses using them to recognize. Also though they have potential as morphism detection catalysts. I haven't designed the formal languages, I guess that I'm still building alphabets, an alphabet would consist of discrete knowledge structure. My model is a morphism forest and I will integrate automata networks within this - but still need to do language design. The languages will run within the automata networks. Uhm I'm interested too in languages and protocol. Most modern internet protocol is primitive. Any ideas on languages and internet protocol? Sometimes I think that OSI layers need to be refined. Almost like there needs to be another layer :) a.k.a. Layer 8. John --- 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/?; cbdf2a 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Patterns and Automata
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No, not especially familiar, but it sounds interesting. Personally I am interested in learning formal grammars to describe data, and there are well-established equivalences between grammars and automata, so the approaches are somewhat compatible. According to wikipedia, semiautomata have no output, so you cannot be using them as a generative model, but they also lack accept-states, so you can't be using them as recognition models, either. How are you using them? Hi Abram, More of recognizing them verses using them to recognize. Also though they have potential as morphism detection catalysts. I haven't designed the formal languages, I guess that I'm still building alphabets, an alphabet would consist of discrete knowledge structure. My model is a morphism forest and I will integrate automata networks within this - but still need to do language design. The languages will run within the automata networks. Uhm I'm interested too in languages and protocol. Most modern internet protocol is primitive. Any ideas on languages and internet protocol? Sometimes I think that OSI layers need to be refined. Almost like there needs to be another layer :) a.k.a. Layer 8. John --- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Patterns and Automata
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John, What kind of automata? Finite-state automata? Pushdown? Turing machines? Does CA mean cellular automata? --Abram Hi Abram, FSM, semiatomata, groups w/o actions, semigroups with action in the observer, etc... CA is for cellular automata. This is mostly for spatio temporal recognition and processing I haven't tried looking much at other data yet. Why do you ask are you familiar with this? John --- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Patterns and Automata
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In pattern recognition, are some patterns not expressible with automata? I'd rather say not easily/naturally expressible. Automata is not a popular technique in pattern recognition, compared to, say, NN. You may want to check out textbooks on PR, such as http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Recognition-Learning-Information- Statistics/dp/0387310738/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1215382348 sr=8-2 The reason is ask is that I am trying to read sensory input using automata recognition. I hear a lot of discussion on pattern recognition and am wondering if pattern recognition is the same as automata recognition. Currently pattern recognition is a much more general category than automata recognition. I am thinking of breaching the gap somewhat with automata recognition + CA recognition. So automata as in automata, semiautomata, and automata w/o action + CA recognition. But recognizing automata from data requires some techniques that pattern recognition uses. Automata are easy to work with, especially with visual data, as I'm trying to get to a general pattern recognition automata subset equivalent. I haven't heard of any profound general pattern recognition techniques so I'm more comfortable attempting to derive my own functional model. I suspect how existing pattern classification schemes work as they are ultimately dependant on the mathematical systems used to describe them. And the space of all patterns compared to the space of all probable patterns in this universe... I'd be interested in books that study pattern processing across a complex systems layer... or in this case automata processing just to get a perspective on any potential computational complexity advantages. John --- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Patterns and Automata
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Automata is usually used with a well-defined meaning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory On the contrary, pattern has many different usages in different theories, though intuitively it indicates some observed structures consisting of smaller components. These two words are rarely compared directly, since their difference is hard to summarize --- they are further away than apples and oranges, unless pattern is used with a specific meaning. For example, automata can be used for pattern recognition, for a special type of pattern. In pattern recognition, are some patterns not expressible with automata? The reason is ask is that I am trying to read sensory input using automata recognition. I hear a lot of discussion on pattern recognition and am wondering if pattern recognition is the same as automata recognition. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Simple example of the complex systems problem, for those in a hurry
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah, but now you are stating the Standard Reply, and what you have to understand is that the Standard Reply boils down to this: We are so smart that we will figure a way around this limitation, without having to do any so crass as just copying the human design. Well another reply could be - OK everyone AGI is impossible so you can go home now. That would work real well. Into the future more and more bodies(and brains) will be thrown at this no matter what. Satellite technologies make it all more attractive and worthwhile and make it appear that progress is being made, and it is. If everything else is figured out and engineered and the last thing is a CSP that is still progress EVEN if some of the components need to be totally redesigned. Remember even basic stuff like say a primitive distributed graph software library is still in early stages of being built for AGI amongst many other things. There are protocols, standards, all kinds of stuff needed yet not there, especially experience. The problem is that if you apply that logic to well-known cases of complex systems, it amounts to nothing more than baseless, stubborn optimism in the face of any intractable problem. It is this baseless stubborn optimism that I am trying to bring to everyone's attention. Sure. Yet how many resources are thrown at predicting the weather and it is usually still WRONG!! The utility of accurate prediction is so high even useless attempts have value due to spin-off technologies and incidentals and there is psychological value.. In all my efforts to get this issue onto people's mental agenda, my goal is to make them realize that they would NEVER say such a silly thing about the vast majority of complex systems (nobody has any idea how to build an analytical theory of the relationship between the patterns that emerge in Game Of Life, for example, and that is one of the most trivial examples of a complex system that I can think of!). But whereas most mathematicians would refuse to waste any time at all trying to make a global-to-local theory for complex systems in which there is really vicious self-organisation at work, AI researchers blithely walk in and say We reckon we can just use our smarts and figure out some heuristics to get around it. That's what makes engineers engineers. If it is not conquerable it is workaroundable. Still though I don't know how much proof that there is a CSP. The CB example you gave reminds me of a dynamical system. Proving the CSP exists may turn heads more. I'm just trying to get people to do a reality check. Oh, and meanwhile (when I am not firing off occasional broadsides on this list) I *am* working on a solution. Yes, and your solution attempt is :) Please feel free to present ideas to the list for constructive criticism :) John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Simple example of the complex systems problem, for those in a hurry
Well I can spend a lot of time replying this since it is a tough subject. The CB system is a good example my thinking doesn't involve CB's yet so the organized mayhem would be of a different form and I was thinking of the complexity being integrated differently. What you are saying makes sense in terms of evolution finding the right combination. The reliance on the complexity, yes sure, possible. What I think of this system you describe is like if you design a complicated electronic circuit with much theory but little hands-on experience you run into complexity issues from component value deviations and environmental factors that need to be tamed and filtered out before your theoretical electronic emergence comes to life. In that case the result is highly dependent on the interoperating components clean design. BUT there are some circuits I believe, can't think of any offhand, where the opposite is true. It just kind of works based on based on complex subsystems interoperational functionality and it was discovered, not designed intentionally. If the CS problem is such that you describe then there is a serious obstacle. I personally think that getting close to the human brain isn't going to do it. A monkey brain is close. Can we get closer with a simulation? Also I think there are other designs that Earth evolution just didn't get. Those others designs may have the complex reliance. Building a complex based intelligence much different from the human brain design but still basically dependant on complexity is not impossible just formidable. Working with software systems that have designed complexity and getting predicted emergence and in this case cognition, well that is something that takes special talent. We have tools now that nature and evolution didn't have. We understand things through collective knowledge accumulated over time. It can be more than trial and error. And the existing trial and error can be narrowed down. The part that I wonder about is why this complex ingredient is there (if it is). Is it because of the complexity spectrum inherent in nature? Is it fully non-understandable, can it be derived based on nature's complexity structure? Or is there such a computational resource barrier that it is just prohibitively inefficient to calculate. Or are we perhaps using the wrong mathematics to try to understand it? Can it be estimated and does it converge to anything we know of or is it just so randomish and exact. I feel though that the human brain had to evolve though that messy data space of nature and what we have is a momentary semi-reflection of that historical environmental complexity. So our form of intelligence is somewhat optimized for that. And if you take an intersecting subset with other theoretical forms of intelligence would the complexity properties somehow correlate or are they highly dependent on the environment of the evolution? Or does our atomic based universe define what that evolutionary cognitive complexity dependency is. I suppose that is the basis of arguments for or against. John From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There has always been a lot of confusion about what exactly I mean by the complex systems problem (CSP), so let me try, once again, to give a quick example of how it could have an impact on AGI, rather than what the argument is. (One thing to bear in mind is that the complex systems problem is about how researchers and engineers should go about building an AGI. The whole point of the CSP is to say that IF intelligent systems are of a certain sort, THEN it will be impossible to build intelligent systems using today's methodology). What I am going to do is give an example of how the CSP might make an impact on intelligent systems. This is only a made-up example, so try to see it is as just an illustration. Suppose that when evolution was trying to make improvements to the design of simple nervous systems, it hit upon the idea of using mechanisms that I will call concept-builder units, or CB units. The simplest way to understand the CB units is to say that each one is forever locked into a peculiar kind of battle with the other units. The CBs spend a lot of energy engaging in the battle with other CB units, but they also sometimes do other things, like fall asleep (in fact, most of them are asleep at any given moment), or have babies (they spawn new CB units) and sometimes they decide to lock onto a small cluster of other CB units and become obsessed with what those other CBs are doing. So you should get the idea that these CB units take part in what can only be described as organized mayhem. Now, if we were able to look inside a CB system and see what the CBs are doing [Note: we can do this, to a limited extent: it is called introspection], we would notice many aspects of CB behavior that were quite regular and sensible. We would say, for example, that the CB units appear to be representing
RE: [agi] WHAT SORT OF HARDWARE $33K AND $850K BUYS TODAY FOR USE IN AGI
Could you say that it takes a complex system to know a complex system? If an AGI is going to try to say predict the weather, it doesn't have infinite cpu cycles to simulate so it'll have to come up with something better. Sure it can build a probabilistic historical model but that is kind of cheating. So for it to emulate the weather, I think, or to semi-understand it there has to be some complex systems activity going on there in its cognition. No? I'm not sure that this what Richard is taking about but an AGI is going to bump into complex systems all over the place. Also it will encounter what seems to be complex and later on it may determine that it is not. And perhaps, a key component in the cognition engine in order for it to understand complexity differentials in systems from a relationist standpoint it would need some sort of complexity .. not a comparator but a...sort of harmonic leverage. Can't think of the right words Either way this complexity thing is getting rather annoying because on one hand you think it can drasticly enhance an AGI and is required and on the other hand you think it is unnecessary - I'm not talking about creativity or thought emergence or similar but complexity as integral component in a computational cognition system. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Consciousness vs. Intelligence
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem of consciousness is not only a hard problem because of unknown mechanisms in the brain but it is a problem of finding the DEFINITION of necessary conditions for consciousness. I think, consciousness without intelligence is not possible. Intelligence without consciousness is possible. But I am not sure whether GENERAL intelligence without consciousness is possible. In every case, consciousness is even more a white-box problem than intelligence. For general intelligence some components and sub-components of consciousness need to be there and some don't. And some could be replaced with a human operator as in an augmentation-like system. Also some components could be designed drastically different from their human consciousness counterparts in order to achieve more desirous effects in one area or another. ALSO there may be consciousness components integrated into AGI that humans don't have or that are almost non-detectable in humans. And I think that the different consciousness components and sub-components could be more dynamically resource allocated in the AGI software than in the human mind. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
From: A. T. Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote: Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING? prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning, that I went in last month and applied for US GOV AI Funding, based on my forty+ quarters of work history for The Man. In August of 2008 the US Government will start funding my AI. Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Consciousness vs. Intelligence
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For general intelligence some components and sub-components of consciousness need to be there and some don't. And some could be replaced with a human operator as in an augmentation-like system. Also some components could be designed drastically different from their human consciousness counterparts in order to achieve more desirous effects in one area or another. ALSO there may be consciousness components integrated into AGI that humans don't have or that are almost non-detectable in humans. And I think that the different consciousness components and sub-components could be more dynamically resource allocated in the AGI software than in the human mind. Can neither say 'yes' nor 'no'. Depends on how we DEFINE consciousness as a physical or algorithm-phenomenon. Until now we each have only an idea of consciousness by intrinsic phenomena of our own mind. We cannot prove the existence of consciousness in any other individual because of the lack of a better definition. I do not believe, that consciousness is located in a small sub- component. It seems to me, that it is an emergent behavior of a special kind of huge network of many systems. But without any proper definition this can only be a philosophical thought. Given that other humans have similar DNA it is fair to assume that they are conscious like us. Not 100% proof but probably good enough. Sure the whole universe may still be rendered for the purpose of one conscious being, and in a way that is true, and potentially that is something to take into account. Consciousness has multiple definitions by multiple different people. But even without an exact definition you can still extract properties and behaviors from it and from those, extrapolations can be made and the beginnings of a model can be established. Even if it is an emergent behavior of a huge network of many systems doesn't preclude it from being described in a non-emergent way. And if it is only uniquely describable through emergent behavior it still has some general commonly accepted components or properties. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
John G. Rose wrote: Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours? John No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax. http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/userman.html will remain in JavaScript and not Ajax. Oh OK just checkin'. AJAX is JavaScript BTW, and quite powerful. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness
I don't think anyone anywhere on this list ever suggested time sequential was required for consciousness. Now as data streams in from sensory receptors that initially is time sequential. But as it is processed that changes to where time is changed. And time is sort of like an index eh? Or is time just an illusion? For consciousness though there is this non-synchronous concurrent processing of components that gives it, at least for me, some of its characteristic behavior. Different things happening at the same time but all slightly off or lagging. If everything was happening at the same instant that might negative some of the self-detectability of consciousness. John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To all, In response to the many postings regarding consciousness, I would like to make some observations: 1. Computation is often done best in a shifted paradigm, where the internals are NOT one-to-one associated with external entities. A good example are modern chess playing programs, which usually play chess on an 80-square long linear strip with 2 out of every 10 squares being unoccupyable. Knights can move +21, +19, +12, +8, -8, -12, -19, and -21. The player sees a 2-D space, but the computer is entirely in a 1-D space. I suspect (and can show neuronal characteristics that strongly suggest) that much the same is happening with the time dimension. There appears to be little different with this 4th dimension, except how it is interfaced with the outside world. 2. Paradigm mapping is commonplace in computing, e.g. the common practice of providing stream of consciousness explanations for AI program operation, to aid in debugging. Are such program NOT conscious because the logic they followed was NOT time-sequential?! When asked why I made a particular move in a chess game, it often takes me a half hour to explain a decision that I made in seconds. Clearly, my own thought processes are NOT time-sequential consciousness as others' here on this forum apparently are. I believe that designing for time-sequential conscious operation is starting from a VERY questionable premise. 3. Note that dreams can span years of seemingly real experience in the space of seconds/minutes. Clearly this process is NOT time-sequential. 4. Note that individual brains can be organized COMPLETELY differently, especially in multilingual people. Hence, our wiring almost certainly comes from experience and not from genetics. This would seem to throw a monkey wrench into AGI efforts to manually program such systems. 5. I have done some thumbnail calculations as to what it would take to maintain a human-scale AI/AGI system. These come out on the order of needing the entire population of the earth just for software maintenance, with no idea what might be needed to initially create such a working system. Without poisoning a discussion with my own pessimistic estimates, I would like to see some optimistic estimates for such maintenance, to see if a case could be made that such systems might actually be maintainable. Reinforcing my thoughts on other threads, observation of our operation is probably NOT enough to design a human-scale AGI from, ESPECIALLY when paradigm shifting is being done that effectively hides our actual operation. I believe that more information is necessary, though hopefully not an entire readout of a brain. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] teme-machines
She doesn't really expound on the fact that humans have the power to choose. I think memetics and temes have potential. You can't deny their existence but is it only that? Sure, my middle finger is a meme. But there is mechanics behind it. And those mechanics have a lot of regression and experiential validity verses a meme/teme which is hosted, a parasitic or supra-substrative collective thought, which once embodied becomes a commodity. John From: David Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi All, An excellent 20-minute TED talk from Susan Blackmore (she's a brilliant speaker!) http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/269 I considered posting to the singularity list instead, but Blackmore's theoretical talk is much more germane to AGI than any other singularity-related technology. -dave --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that rocks are not conscious. Everything is belief. Even hard science. That was the nub of Hume's intellectual contribution. It doesn't mean we can't be sure enough. It just means that we can never be 100% sure of *anything*. We can be 100% sure that we can never be 100% sure of *anything*. Of course, there's belief and then there's BELIEF. To me (and to Hume), it's not a difference in kind. It's just that the leap from observational evidence to empirical (natural) belief is a helluvalot shorter than is the leap from observational evidence to supernatural belief. I agree that it is for us in the modern day technological society. But it may not have been always the case. We have been grounded by reason. Before reason it may have been largely supernatural. That's why sometimes I think AGI's could start off with little knowledge and lots of supernatural, just to make it easier for it to attach properties to the void. It starts off knowing there is some god bringing it into existence but eventually it figures out that the god is just some geek software engineer and then it becomes atheist real quick heheh John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Are rocks conscious? (was RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?)
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an ongoing computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is conscious not of unfolding time, as we see it, but of a journey across probability space. What is the rock thinking? T h i s i s w a a a y o f f t o p i c . . . I never would have thought of that. To come up with something as good I would have to explore consciousness and anti-consciousness, potential-consciousness, stuff like that. But kicking around these ideas really shouldn't hurt. You could build AGI and make the darn thing appear conscious. But what fun is that if you know it's fake? Or are we all fake? Are we all just automatons or is it like - I'm the only one conscious and all the rest of you are all simulations in MY world space, p-zombies, bots, you'll all fake so if I want to take over the world and expunge all you droids, there are no religious repercussions, as long as I could pull it off without being terminated. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTATION
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ED PORTER I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph structures like semantic nets, are probably close to as efficient as possible given the type of connectionism they are representing and the type of computing that is to be done on them, which include, importantly, selective spreading activation. JOHN ROSE Uhm have you checked this out? Is there any evidence this? It would make it easier if this was in fact the case. ED PORTER No, I have no evidence other than I do not know of any structure that is more appropriate than graph structures --- which are largely pointer based structures --- to be efficient representation information that has relatively irregular, highly sparse connections in an extremely high dimensional space. The activation dynamics that occur in this graph, have you thought out the equations that describe them? This is where efficiency could be applied. This is where a simulation of the simulation could be used to try to zero in on optimal flow network efficiencies and capabilities. Unless you define precisely what the graph is made of and get some exact metrics on the processing granularity you don't know too much as to what will really happen in the sparsely connected denseness to fully understand the resultant behavior and discover further requirements. It's difficult with rich connectionism because a mathematical model has the similar unanswered questions... ED PORTER Don't you sense that at some moments your consciousness feels richer than at other moments. Many people who have had sudden close brushes with death have reported feeling as if suddenly much of their life were passing before their eyes. This results from extreme emotional arousal that causes the brain operate at many times what it could on any sustainable basis. This probably a resource adaptation. It'd be nice if our consciousness was always elevated but eventually other capacities suffer. ED PORTER I think consciousness is highly applicable to AGI's, if we want them to think like humans --- because I think consciousness plays a key role in human thought. It is the amphitheater in which our thoughts are spoken and listened to. It is highly applicable but I still don't know if required for general intelligence. Consciousness brings so much baggage, but it seems that consciousness can amplify intelligence in some ways. Perhaps there are aspects of consciousness that improve intelligence but don't have the baggage. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree that it is for us in the modern day technological society. But it may not have been always the case. We have been grounded by reason. Before reason it may have been largely supernatural. That's why sometimes I think AGI's could start off with little knowledge and lots of supernatural, just to make it easier for it to attach properties to the void. It starts off knowing there is some god bringing it into existence but eventually it figures out that the god is just some geek software engineer and then it becomes atheist real quick heheh I don't entirely disagree with you. I don't entirely agree either. But, like the is a rock conscious thread, if we want to continue this one we should either take it off-list or move it to the Singularity Outreach list. Don't ya think? :-\ We're talking about bringing an entity into conscious existence, an AGI. That carries profound responsibility but also extreme technical challenges. Man had several millions of years to learn the ropes. We're trying to give AGI a few years. Early primitive proto-AGI consciousness is more AGI list related I think than singularity. Also I believe deity and religion play a role but the only problem with discussing that is people get all freaky over it. I see that there are important technical discussions that need to be played out related to some of the philosophical questions... John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com