like this (& the Genome Project):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
should become an ever bigger part of sci. & tech. Of course, with Alzheimer's
there is a great deal of commonly recognized ground. Not so with AGI. It might
be interesting to spec
dized 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...@blu
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 f
e your idea that AGI has to be diversifiable but
your inability to understand certain things that are said about computer
programming makes your proclamation look odd.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria?
Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria?
The universal endlessly repeated criterion here that a system must be capable
of being "scaled up" is a narrow AI criterion.
The proper criterion is "diversifiable." If your system can say navigate a
DARPA car through a grid of city
[from:
Concept-Rich Mathematics Instruction]
Teacher: Very good. Now, look at this drawing
and explain what you see. [Draws.]
Debora: It's a pie with three pieces.
Teacher: Tell us about the pieces.
Debora: Three thirds.
Teachers: What is the difference among the pieces?
Debora: This is t
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.t
An unusually sophisticated (& somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expresses-and-detects-emotions.html
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: h
al AI Draft2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is
*such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage
Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an
Ben: I don't agree that solving vision and the vision-cognition bridge is
*such* a huge part of AGI, though it's certainly a nontrivial percentage
Presumably because you don't envisage your AGI/computer as an independent
entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially
hair, if you find it by searching for chairs,
its likely a chair. etc.
You see, chairs are not simply recognized by their physical structure. There
are multiple ways you can recognize it and it is certainly important to know
that it doesn't seem useful for another task.
The idea that
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
I already stated these. read previous emails.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual
AGI.?
From: David Jones
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:3
t patterns must be physical?
This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary
restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such
restrictions.
Dave
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
John:It can be defined mathematically in
a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical?
This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary
restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such
restrictions.
Dave
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner wrot
How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only seen an
example or two of the concept class-of-forms?
(You're effectively misreading the set of fotos - altho. this needs making
clear - a major point of the set is: how will any concept/schema of chair,
derived from any se
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...@b
d
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 w
x27;t argue with me regarding it anymore. I know your opinion and respectfully
disagree. If you don't accept my counter argument, there is no point to
continuing this back and forth ad finitum.
Dave
On Aug 8, 2010 9:29 AM, "Mike Tintner" wrote:
You're waffling.
Yo
en 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 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
Why don't you kick it off with a suggestion of your own?
(I think there are only "lower"/basic *robotic* AGI apps- and suggest no one
will come up with any answers for you. Why don't you disprove me?)
--
From: "Ben Goertzel"
Sent: Sunday, August
sounds like a great achievement - or not?
From: deepakjnath
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 2:55 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] $35 (& 2GB RAM) it is
This is done in a university in my city.! :) That is our Education Minister :)
cheers,
Deepak
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Mike Tin
http://shockedinvestor.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-35-laptop-unveiled.html
---
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/
1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear
why your approach is one and not the other
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?
3) "Breakin
This is on the surface interesting. But I'm kinda dubious about it.
I'd like to know exactly what's going on - who or what (what kind of organism)
is solving what kind of problem about what? The exact nature of the problem and
the solution, not just a general blurb description.
If you follow t
It sure isn't obvious to me.
Besides, if my "statements of stupidity" theory is true, then why even bother
building AGIs, because we won't even be able to meaningfully discuss things
with them.
Steve
==
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
sTEVE:I
sTEVE:I have posted plenty about "statements of ignorance", our probable
inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be "thinking",
What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given
that there are zero but zero examples of AGI.
Don't you think it wo
[Here's the SciAm article - go see the illustrations too. We should really be
discussing all this technologically because it strikes me as the closest to
real AGI there is - and probably where we're likely to see the soonest advances]
WAR MACHINES
Robots on and above the battlefield are bri
Steve:How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and
automated weapons?
You might as well ask for a ban on war (or, perhaps, aggression). I strongly
recommend reading the SciAm July 2010 issue on robotic warfare. The US already
operates from memory somewhere between 13,00
Dave:I believe that technological progress has been accelerating for quite some
time now. In fact, that is hardly debatable
Yes, but that isn't the issue.
What Lanier points out is that so far we only have machines that are
*fragments* of living systems - rather like those horror movies, wher
I write this month to condemn the inventor of the electronic "seeing eye"
toilet. Yes, that's right, I'm talking toilets here, doo-doo-stuff, some of
which I hopefully won't step in myself over the next few paragraphs. I know
there must be more substantive and less objectionable topics to bring
es to
the memory. And complex and subtle variations of the notes become apparent to
the listener as the base notes are already stored in the memory and so no
longer new.
cheers,
Deepak
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Deepak,
No it's basically a distraction
[agi] How do we hear music
Mike,
All chinese look the same for me. But for a chinese person they don't. Why is
this? Is there another clue here?
Thanks,
Deepak
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
David,
There must be a fair amount of cog sci/AI analysis of all thi
David,
There must be a fair amount of cog sci/AI analysis of all this - of how the
brain analyses and remembers tunes - and presumably leading theories (as for
vision). Do you or anyone know more here?
Also, you have noted something of extreme importance, wh. is a lot more than "a
step furth
th my kid ... and on and on.
The "space thinking" of rationality is superefficient but rigid and useless for
AGI. The "open world" of the human, creative mind is highly inefficient by
comparison but superflexible and the only way to do AGI.
From: rob levy
Sent: Monday, July 26, 20
rationalisation -
epitomised in current programming - to create and think in a closed space of
options, wh. is always artificial in nature].
From: rob levy
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:16 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity
Not sure how that is useful, or even how it
I came across this, thinking it was going to be an example of maths fantasy,
but actually it has a rather nice idea about the mathematics of creativity.
The Math Behind Creativity
By Chuck Scott on June 15, 2010
The Science of Creativity is based on the following mathematica
Matt:
I mean a neural model with increasingly complex features, as opposed to an
algorithmic 3-D model (like video game graphics in reverse). Of course David
rejects such ideas ( http://practicalai.org/Prize/Default.aspx ) even though
the one proven working vision model uses it.
Which is? and
Huh, Matt? What examples of this "holistic" scene analysis are there (or are
you thinking about)?
From: Matt Mahoney
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:25 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
David Jones wrote:
> I should also mention that I ran into problems main
No the answers are not there. That's complete rubbish; You won't be able to
produce a point from your collective links that addresses any of the problems
listed.
You seem blithely unaware that these are all unsolved problems.
From: L Detetive
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:54 AM
To: agi
Subje
AFAIK on this forum are actually addressing the problem. I'm
sure *you* can too.
--
From: "Michael Swan"
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:28 AM
To: "agi"
Subject: Re: [agi] How do we hear music
On Fri, 2010-07-23 a
and there is no disk.
It's actually not hard to find a computer for $35. People are always throwing
away old computers that still work.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
--------
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
this strikes me as socially worldchanging if it works - potentially leading to
you-ain't-see-nothing-yet changes in world education (& commerce) levels over
the next decade:
http://www.physorg.com/news199083092.html
Any comments on its technical & massproduction viability ?
--
And maths will handle the examples given :
same tunes - different scales, different instruments
same face - cartoon, photo
same logo - different parts [buildings/ fruits/ human figures]
revealing them to be the same - how exactly?
Or you could take two arseholes - same kind of object, but
Seems to miss the point. How can you recognize a cartoon and a photo of
Madonna, despite their radically different point-by-point parts? Because the
brain uses fluid schemas - outline structures/frameworks - for both visual and
sound images... and this enables it to even in extreme cases ignore
Predicting the old and predictable [incl in shape and form] is narrow AI.
Squaresville.
Adapting to the new and unpredictable [incl in shape and form] is AGI. Rock on.
From: David Jones
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:49 PM
To: agi
Subject: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
An Upda
Infants *start* with general learning skills - they have to extensively
discover for themselves how to do most things - control head, reach out, turn
over, sit up, crawl, walk - and also have to work out perceptually what the
objects they see are, and what they do... and what sounds are, and how
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
--------
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the
computer's or any agent&#x
times" as you say, but most of the time
they're forgotten.
--
From: "Jan Klauck"
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:56 AM
To: "agi"
Subject: Re: [agi] The Collective Brain
Mike Tintner wrote
No, the collecti
Ah the collective brain is saying something else as well - wh. is another
reason why I was hoping to get a discussion. It's exemplified in the example
of the mouse.
Actually, Ridley is saying, the complete knowledge to build a mouse does not
reside in any individual brain, or indeed by extens
ocial division of labour massively amplifies the
productive power of the individual. Plus you get sexual benefits.
--
From: "Jan Klauck"
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:25 PM
To: "agi"
Subject: Re: [agi] The Collective Brain
Mi
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-20&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email
Good lecture worth looking at about how trade - exchange of both goods and
ideas - has fostered civilisation. Near the end introduces a v. importan
matmaho...@yahoo.com
--------
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:08:28 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Yes that's what people do, but it's not what programmed computers do.
The useful
would rephrase "solving any problem" as being able to come up with reasonable
approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do).
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner
wrote:
Whaddya mean by "solve the problem of how to solve problems"?
roblem" as being able to come up with reasonable
approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do).
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Whaddya mean by "solve the problem of how to solve problems"? Develop a
universal approach to solvi
Whaddya mean by "solve the problem of how to solve problems"? Develop a
universal approach to solving any problem? Or find a method of solving a class
of problems? Or what?
From: rob levy
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:26 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Howev
ds to build a new system; Just
divide the problem, solve it one by one, arrange the pieces and voila. We are
missing something fundamentally here. That I believe has to come as a stroke of
genius to someone.
thanks,
Deepak
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
No, Dav
Ian: Suppose I want to know about the characteristics of concrete
You seem to think you can know about an object without ever having seen it or
physically interacted with it? As long as you have a set of words for the
world, you need never have actually experienced or been in the world?
You ca
ly different movies, you would agree that we have created a true AGI.
Yes there are always lot of things we need to do before we reach that level.
Its just good to know the destination so that we will know it when it arrives.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Jeez, no A
test for AGI structure.
The ability of a system to understand its environment and underlying sub plots
is an important requirement of AGI.
Deepak
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Please explain/expound freely why you're not "convinced" - and indicate wh
vinced I am sure.
I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can
be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we
know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map.
Deepak
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tint
I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of
AGI.
Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See
archives).
I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from
rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks).
Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:05:51 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] NL parsing
Or if you want to be pedantic about caps, the speaker is identifying 3
buffaloes from Buffalo, & 2 from elsewhere
Or if you want to be pedantic about caps, the speaker is identifying 3
buffaloes from Buffalo, & 2 from elsewhere.
Anyone got any other readings?
--
From: "Jiri Jelinek"
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:12 PM
To: "agi"
Subject: [agi] NL parsing
"
Either that or the speaker is identifying 8 buffaloes (& no bulls) passing
by
--
From: "Jiri Jelinek"
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:12 PM
To: "agi"
Subject: [agi] NL parsing
"Believe it or not, this sentence is grammatically correct and has
mea
Sounds like a good explanation of why a body is essential for vision - not just
for POV and orientation [up/left/right/down/ towards/ away] but for comparison
and yardstick - you do know when your body or parts thereof are moving -and
it's not merely touch but the comparison of other objects st
when the person was a awake, and dissipated when they were asleep.
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 02:13 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote:
A demonstration of global connectedness is - associate with an " O "
I get:
number, sun, dish, disk, ball, letter, mouth, two fingers, "oh", circl
A demonstration of global connectedness is - associate with an " O "
I get:
number, sun, dish, disk, ball, letter, mouth, two fingers, "oh", circle,
wheel, wire coil, outline, station on metro, hole, Kenneth Noland painting,
ring, coin, roundabout
connecting among other things - language
Michael :The brains "slow and unreliable" methods I think are the price paid
for
generality and innately unreliable hardware
Yes to one - nice to see an AGI-er finally starting to join up the dots,
instead of simply dismissing the brain's massive difficulties in maintaining
a train of thought.
Michael: We can't do operations that
require 1,000,000 loop iterations. I wish someone would give me a PHD
for discovering this ;) It far better describes our differences than any
other theory.
Michael,
This isn't a competitive point - but I think I've made that point several
times (and so of
you *CAN* handle
unknown objects. The same type of solution can be applied to many other
problems, including AGI. The complete properties of the object or concept may
be unknown, but the components that can be used to describe it are usually
known.
Your claim is baseless.
Dave
On Tue,
s and procedures with
specified kinds of actions and objects - they cannot deal with unspecified
kinds of actions and objects, period. You won't produce any actual examples to
the contrary.
From: David Jones
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:00 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge
#x27;m not aware of anyone who
has any remotely viable proposals here, are you?
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:46 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner
wrote:
And programs as we know them, don'
To summarise: you need a fluid outline for a concept in order to guide a vastly
diverse spectrum of lines of action - and lines/delineations of objects. (You
can almost but not quite think of this geometrically).
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/
Ah suddenly I realise why flexible/fluid outlines for concepts are an obvious
necessity.
The reason they seem like a strange rather than obvious idea is that we - and
especially AI-ers - tend to think of concepts in terms of subjects that we are
reading about - that we are viewing as spectators
Just a quick note on what is actually a massive subject & the heart of AGI. I
imagine - but do comment - that most of you think when I say that concepts are
rough flexible outlines/schemas, "wtf is this weird guy on about ? what's that
got to do with serious AI? nonsense"
Well, here are some cl
You seem to be reaching for something important here, but it isn't at all clear
what you mean.
I would say that any creative activity (incl. pure problemsolving) begins from
a *conceptual paradigm* - a v. rough outline - of the form of that activity and
the form of its end-product or -procedure
http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/cash-in-on-the-robot-revolution-49024.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Money%2BMorning
http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/share-tips-five-ways-into-the-robotics-sector-49025.aspx
--
One tangential comment.
You're still thinking linearly. Machines are linear chains of parts.
Cause-and-effect thinking made flesh/metal.
With organisms, however you have whole webs of parts acting more or less
simultaneously.
We will probably need to bring that organic thinking/framework - fie
oth face
the same problems of uncertainty and encoding.
Dave
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
General point: you keep talking as if algorithms *work* for visual AGI - they
don't - they simply haven't. Unless you take a set of objects carefully chosen
to be closel
in terms of processing.
Especially because you haven't defined how you're going to decide what to
transform and what not to. So, before you can even use this algorithm, you're
going to have to use something else to decide what is a possible candidate and
what is not.
On Fri
hemas or
even how to approach the task of figuring it out. Until then, its not a
solution to anything.
Dave
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
If fluid schemas - speaking broadly - are what is needed, (and I'm pretty
sure they are), it's n.g. trying for somet
ubject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Couple of quick comments (I'm still thinking about all this - but I'm
confident everything AGI links up here).
A fluid schema is arguably by its v. nature a method - a
philosophical rethinking is required.
From: David Jones
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:56 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Mike,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Isn't the first problem simply to differentiate the objects in a sce
Isn't the first problem simply to differentiate the objects in a scene? (Maybe
the most important movement to begin with is not the movement of the object,
but of the viewer changing their POV if only slightly - wh. won't be a factor
if you're "looking" at a screen)
And that I presume comes
he hand can draw that the
camera can't
From: Matt Mahoney
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:21 PM
To: agi
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
----
be done a lot faster if the iPad had a camera.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
----
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi
Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 6:28:58 AM
Subject: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad
http://www.teleg
that are not
representative of the environment though.
The example I just gave is a completely open set, yet an algorithm could handle
such an open set, and I am designing for it. So, your claim that no one is
studying or handling such things is not right.
Dave
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/artvideo/7865736/Artist-creates-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.
-
of metaphor.
That's my opinion.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
I'd like opinions on terminology here.
IMO the opposition of closed sets vs open sets is fundamental to the
difference between narrow AI and AGI.
However I notice that these terms
y opinion.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
I'd like opinions on terminology here.
IMO the opposition of closed sets vs open sets is fundamental to the
difference between narrow AI and AGI.
However I notice that these terms have different meanin
I'd like opinions on terminology here.
IMO the opposition of closed sets vs open sets is fundamental to the difference
between narrow AI and AGI.
However I notice that these terms have different meanings to mine in maths.
What I mean is:
closed set: contains a definable number and *kinds/speci
ze completely new objects without any training except for simply
observing them in their natural state.
I wish people understood this better.
Dave
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Just off the cuff here - isn't the same true for vision? You can't learn
vision from v
Just off the cuff here - isn't the same true for vision? You can't learn vision
from vision. Just as all NLP has no connection with the real world, and totally
relies on the human programmer's knowledge of that world.
Your visual program actually relies totally on your visual "vocabulary" - not
ction for an AGI
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern* ways,
and *predictably.*
Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork* ways,
and *unbleedingpredictably* .
This pres
omer
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 6:35 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner
wrote:
Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern*
ways, and *predictably.*
Animate objects normally
The recent Core of AGI exchange has led me IMO to a beautiful conclusion -
to one of the most basic distinctions a real AGI system must make, and also
a simple way of distinguishing between narrow AI and real AGI projects of
any kind.
Consider - you have
a) Dave's square moving across a scre
you would more than
likely lose.
The stock market is another situation where narrow-AI algorithms may
already outperform humans ... certainly they outperform all except the
very best humans...
... ben g
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Mike Tintner
wrote:
Oh well that settles it...
e to try it. However, there are chess programs that can
beat the majority of people who play chess without outside assistance.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Well, Ben, I'm glad you're "quite sure" because you haven't given a single
nstructed to beat humans at Pong ;p ... without teaching us
much of anything about intelligence...
Very likely a narrow-AI machine learning system could *learn* by experience to
beat humans at Pong ... also without teaching us much
of anything about intelligence...
Pong is almost surely a "
nce for this conclusion when we see the two windows
side by side. If we see the old window with the content still intact we will
realize that clicking the icon did not seem to have cleared it.
Dave
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jim Bromer wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Mike Ti
1 - 100 of 908 matches
Mail list logo
