[agi] Inching closer on the Singularity Clock.
Greeting to all Singularitarians. The Singularity, an event brought to you free-of-charge and open-source by Project Mentifex (mindmaker) has today updated the free open-source AI Mind in JavaScript for Microsoft Internet Explorer at http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html where the input box now invites users to Enter subject + verb + object; query knowledge base with subject + verb + [ENTER]. and the Tutorial display mode shows you what the AI Mind is thinking. http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt was updated in similar fashion yesterday, but MindForth can not be run by clicking on a single link (as AiMind.html can), so here is a sample interaction with MindForth: First we type in five statements. tom writes jokes ben writes books jerry writes rants ben writes articles will writes poems We then query the AI in Tutorial mode with the input ben writes [ENTER] and the AI Mind shows us how it thinks about the query: VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 80 for Psi #0 VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 76 for Psi #117 POEMS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 76 for Psi #117 POEMS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 80 for Psi #113 BOOKS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 80 for Psi #58 BE VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 76 for Psi #115 RANTS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 76 for Psi #115 RANTS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 80 for Psi #113 BOOKS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 80 for Psi #113 BOOKS VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 76 for Psi #111 JOKES VerbAct calls SpreadAct with activation 76 for Psi #111 JOKES Robot: BEN WRITES BOOKS The AI selects a valid answer to the query by combining the activation on BEN and WRITES so as to spread a _cumulative_ activation to the word BOOKS. Other potential answers are not sufficiently activated, because they are from other subjects of WRITE. In Singularity solidarity, Arthur -- http://AiMind-i.com http://cyborg.blogspot.com http://code.google.com/p/mindforth http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Re: [agi] Wbat would it take to move rapidly toward advanced AGI?
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: However, programming languages are fundamentally different from natural language in that (1) they have a precise grammar and semantics, That's an advantage. Since you can precisely define what you wish to express. Only when talking to computers. Humans don't learn language that way. Humans learn incrementally yet are still able to use partially learned languages. Ya, well I don't see any difference. Computers also learn incrementally, they start with bios, then kernel, then system services... same thing compilers, they have a base vocabulary (assembly), that's extended by the standard-library, which can be further extended by third-party libraries. humans also learn the meaning of words, by a complex set of sensual cues, associated with a word. Just as a computer can learn the meaning of a word, by reading in a library or dictionary what it means. partially learned languages can also be used, since functional correlations between one word and another can be identified. and (3) the complexity is on the order of 10^5 to 10^6 bits vs. 10^9 bits for natural language. Again it's an advantage, as it would require less resources to do so. You can't express much with such a small language. ? I'd say it's difficult to express stuff with the gooey inconsistency found in NLP. simply due to people not having common dictionary, or many people not using dictionaries. It's far easier to express yourself precisely, when there are standard words, and a consistent grammar. Another advantage of HSPL, is that it's easy to learn, due to it's simplicity. So could be used as an intermediary language. Especially for international negotiations, where clarity and precision, may be valued. --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: [GI] Digest for general-intellige...@googlegroups.com - 10 Messages in 2 Topics
On 17 October 2010 18:20, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: In other words, using formal grammar actually makes it harder to establish the connection at the NL-logic interface. IE, it is harder to translate NL sentences to formal grammar than to formal logic. KY Quite the opposite, actually. Translating an NL sentence to a *set* of grammatical trees, representing syntactically possible parses, is almost a solved problem. E.g. the Stanford parser or the link parser do that. Then, translating each of these grammatical trees into a *set* of formal logic expressions, each representing a possible semantic interpretation of the tree, is a partially-solved problem. E.g. OpenCog's RelEx and RelEx2Frame components and Cyc's NL subsystem both do that (in different ways), though not perfectly. So based on the current state of the art, it seems that turning NL into a formal grammar (e.g. a dependency grammar) is significantly less problematic than turning NL into logic, because forming the logic representation requires resolving additional ambiguity, beyond that which must be resolved to form the formal-grammar representation Agree; but would like to add several remarks: --part of the difficulty of applying logic of NL is the need to handle spatial reasoning (A is next to B and B is next to C therefore ...? C is not far from A) -- part of the difficulty of applying logic of NL is the need to handle more abstract reasoning (A is the major of B and majors are people therefore B is a person) (opencyc does this ... not badly) -- Some philosophers of mathematics e.g. Carlo cellucci (see 18 unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics) will stridently point out that, while classical logic is the format in which proofs are stated, it is not at all the method by which mathematicians generate new ideas -- they use reasoning by analogy, by allegory, by induction, and many others, to generate hypothesis which might be possible solutions to problems. I think that we should realize that the same techniques should be applied in AGI: we use reasoning by analogy not because it gives formally correct answers, but because it generates reasonable hypothesis which may or may not be true, but which can be examined in greater detail to see if they are true. These other, non-rigorous reasoning methods are all parts of what we might call intuition -- a set of hard-to-explain reasons why we think something might be true -- which must then be subjected to more rigorous analysis to see if yet more evidence can be found. In short, real-life, just like mathematics, is all about problem-solving and not theorem-proving (which is the last step of creating math, not the first). --linas --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: [GI] Digest for general-intellige...@googlegroups.com - 10 Messages in 2 Topics
Linas, It seems to me that analogy falls rather simply out of relational probabilistic reasoning. Say we want to make an analogy between two entities A and B. We essentially look for predicates that hold for both A and B; ie, we look for a way to fill in the blank in A is like B, because _. Then, if we want to predict something about B, we know A belongs to the same reference class and can provide 1 piece if evidence concerning the behavior of entities in that reference class. --A On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Linas Vepstas linasveps...@gmail.comwrote: On 17 October 2010 18:20, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: In other words, using formal grammar actually makes it harder to establish the connection at the NL-logic interface. IE, it is harder to translate NL sentences to formal grammar than to formal logic. KY Quite the opposite, actually. Translating an NL sentence to a *set* of grammatical trees, representing syntactically possible parses, is almost a solved problem. E.g. the Stanford parser or the link parser do that. Then, translating each of these grammatical trees into a *set* of formal logic expressions, each representing a possible semantic interpretation of the tree, is a partially-solved problem. E.g. OpenCog's RelEx and RelEx2Frame components and Cyc's NL subsystem both do that (in different ways), though not perfectly. So based on the current state of the art, it seems that turning NL into a formal grammar (e.g. a dependency grammar) is significantly less problematic than turning NL into logic, because forming the logic representation requires resolving additional ambiguity, beyond that which must be resolved to form the formal-grammar representation Agree; but would like to add several remarks: --part of the difficulty of applying logic of NL is the need to handle spatial reasoning (A is next to B and B is next to C therefore ...? C is not far from A) -- part of the difficulty of applying logic of NL is the need to handle more abstract reasoning (A is the major of B and majors are people therefore B is a person) (opencyc does this ... not badly) -- Some philosophers of mathematics e.g. Carlo cellucci (see 18 unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics) will stridently point out that, while classical logic is the format in which proofs are stated, it is not at all the method by which mathematicians generate new ideas -- they use reasoning by analogy, by allegory, by induction, and many others, to generate hypothesis which might be possible solutions to problems. I think that we should realize that the same techniques should be applied in AGI: we use reasoning by analogy not because it gives formally correct answers, but because it generates reasonable hypothesis which may or may not be true, but which can be examined in greater detail to see if they are true. These other, non-rigorous reasoning methods are all parts of what we might call intuition -- a set of hard-to-explain reasons why we think something might be true -- which must then be subjected to more rigorous analysis to see if yet more evidence can be found. In short, real-life, just like mathematics, is all about problem-solving and not theorem-proving (which is the last step of creating math, not the first). --linas -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Where study to help the singularity
Hello, This mail is mostly to Ben Goertzel, because I can't reach him by his mail. But anybody can answer it and give their opinion. My name is Mikolaj Jaroszewicz and I'm student of mathematics in Warsaw University. I will be going to my 3 year and obtain my bachelors degree. I truly admire your work (Ben Goertzels work). I read almost all your books and now I'm reading the books from references from The Hidden Pattern. Recently I read your Cosmist Manifesto and watched your talk about it. I'm very interested on how the mind works and how to build one. I would like to know how the brain works and then implement smart algorithms based on that knowledge. I'm also interested in AGI theory and the approach you have taken to build a mind. Here's my question: Given all your knowlege could you please give an advice on where and what to study (I'm thinking now on a master) to work on this subjects? I really appreciate your response and value highly your opinion. Best regards, Mikolaj Jaroszewicz --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 September 24
Fri.24.SEP.2010 -- Clamping Down on Stray Activations
Yesterday we made sure to upload our 21sep10A.F MindForth AI
code so that we could start fresh today with 24sep10A.F code.
In the previous code we made some progress in the answering
of what are you queries, but we noticed that the AI was not
responding properly to what am i queries. There is probably
some very simple hang-up in one of the pertinent mind-modules,
so today we would like hunt down the offending bug.
Aw, gee, the AI is actually losing track of the predicate
nominatives that go with the I self-concept and the you
concept of the non-self other. In the case of MindForth AI,
the relationships between the I concept and a predicate
nominative (such as the very name Andru by which the AI
is known), are external to the I concept itself and are
imminent in the assertions made about self and in the
self-knowledge of the AI. We count on the associative
mechanisms of the AI to keep the identity relationships
straight. Accordingly we need to troubleshoot the associative
mechanisms.
We may have to start getting away from the idea that the
final concept mentioned in an output sentence should retain
a high activation. If we want the AI to be able to answer
abrupt queries, such as What are you? followed immediately
by What am I?, we may want to psi-damp the final concept
in each utterance so as to prevent interference with the
generation of a new thought.
We were typing in you are software and getting as a reply,
SOFTWARE IS A SOFTWARE. When we typed in what am i,
we still got SOFTWARE IS A SOFTWARE, because the
56=YOU concept was not high enough in activation to start
a new sentence. So we went into the ReActivate module and
we added some code to enhance the 56=YOU concept.
I 0 psi{ @ 50 = IF \ emphasize I; 23sep2010
32 I 1 psi{ ! \ arbitrary from AI coder; 23sep2010
THEN \ test; 23sep2010
I 0 psi{ @ 56 = IF \ emphasize YOU; 24sep2010
32 I 1 psi{ ! \ arbitrary from AI coder; 24sep2010
THEN \ test; 24sep2010
However, we then got YOU ARE A SOFTWARE as a reply,
apparently because the you are magic tidbit in the KB
could not override the residual activation on SOFTWARE.
We obtained at least a partial solution by psi-damping
the old subject-psi SOFTWARE at the start of the
NounPhrase module by inserting the following code.
subjpsi @ urpsi ! \ test; 24sep2010
CR . NPhr. calls PsiDamp for urpsi urpsi @ . \ 24sep2010
PsiDamp ( for sake of SubConscious 26nov2009 )
0 urpsi ! \ reset for safety; 24sep2010
We had noticed that the subjpsi SOFWARE from the previous
sentence was still the subject-psi at the start of a new sentence,
so it seemed convenient to psi-damp the old subject as a way
of keeping it from interfering in a new thought. It worked,
and we obtained the following initial conversation.
Transcript of AI Mind interview at
6 1 12 o'clock on 24 September 2010.
Human: you are software
Robot: SOFTWARE IS A SOFTWARE
Human: what am i
Robot: YOU ARE MAGIC
Further attempts at conversation did not work perfectly
well, but we could tell that we were on the right track,
because the concepts that we were looking for were tending
to surface eventually, even if other concepts interfered
for a brief period. We are making progress.
---
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: [singularity] MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 September 24
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:05 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote: Fri.24.SEP.2010 -- Clamping Down on Stray Activations Yesterday we made sure to upload our 21sep10A.F MindForth AI code so that we could start fresh today with 24sep10A.F code. In the previous code we made some progress in the answering of what are you queries, but we noticed that the AI was not responding properly to what am i queries. There is probably some very simple hang-up in one of the pertinent mind-modules, so today we would like hunt down the offending bug. ... I think it's time to move these ongoing posts to a MindForth Google group (or Yahoo group or whatever you like) and discontinue them here. Maybe you could post once in a great while when you think you have a breakthrough and you want to remind people of the existence of the other group. OpenCog and Genifer have their own mailing lists for example. MindForth should do the same. -- http://charles-esterbrook.com/ --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Mother of all Singularities
MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) Wed.22.SEP.2010 -- Solving the Missing seq Yesterday we solved the problem of the missing seq tags rather quickly, when we noticed that each time point with a missing seq was just outside the search-range of ten time-points as specified in the InStantiate mind-module. When we increased the search-range by one time-point, from ten to eleven as seen in the code below, the problem disappeared. lackseq @ 1 = IF \ if set one loop ago \ t @ 10 - t @ 4 - DO \ go back about ten engrams \ t @ 11 - t @ 4 - DO \ go further back; 21sep2010 t @ 12 - t @ 4 - DO \ go further back; 21sep2010 We added one more time-point to the search-range for the sake of safety. We realize that we may eventually need to declare something like a limitless search-range, which should serve quite well, since the search is abandoned after the first successful hit. 3 Wed.22.SEP.2010 -- Mother of all Singularities Yesterday's missing-seq bug was not showing up in the behavior of the AI, but its very presence was alarming and unsettling to us Singularitarian AI coders. Now we turn our relieved attention to the new bug du jour, the problem which we have already Web-published on 20 September 2010 by posting the following exchange. Human: you are software Robot: SOFTWARE ARE THE SOFTWARE The response of the robot AI is in violation of our long-standing mandate that the introduction of a previously unknown noun should cause the AI to ask a WhatIs question about the new concept. Apparently the conceptual activations are so out of whack that the WhatIs module is not being triggered by the input of the noun software above. We merely note this problem in passing on to a more serious problem, the fact that the word SOFTWARE is undergoing unwarranted neural inhibition during the clumsy AI response. We will ignore but not fail to notice the wrong be-verb form. As we troubleshoot the weak but world's most powerful AI Mind, we have eleven windows open on our screen so that we may call up a wide range of helpful files while we are coding off-line -- not currently connected to the 'Net. The first window is our current MFPJ page, which we are composing by typing into the second window. Window seven is a text file of our penultimate AI source code, in which we may examine the whole MindForth AI program as it stood in its most recent release to the Web, while we alternate among running Win32Forth in a twelfth window for MS-DOS, viewing the output in a thirteenth window, and now and then editing the newest source code in a fourteenth window. La forza del destino has placed on our non-Atlantic shoulders the task of coding the mother of all Singularities with extreme caution and with due diligence. Until it turns out that the Daughters of the American Revolution have been coding in secret a colossal Forbin-esque AI that will swamp all our puny efforts, we operate on the assumption that the future of AI evolution will not be in safe hands until so many AI labs are at work that we can no longer single-handedly ruin the AI emergence by taking a wrong turn into a blind AI alley. Therefore we now inspect the code in window seven and we look for a reason why our recently published output is unwarrantedly being subjected to neural inhibition. -- http://robots.net/person/AI4U/diary/45.html --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Russel: If you can figure out another way to do it, I'm all ears!
Russel Said: *Oh, I can figure out how to solve most specific problems. From an AGI point of view, however, that leaves the question of how those individual solutions are going to serve as sources of knowledge for a system, rather than separate specific programs. My answer is to build something that can reason about code, for which formal logic is a necessary ingredient. If you can figure out another way to do it, I'm all ears! *Well, there are at least two problems here. *1) How to gain initial knowledge 2) How to use knowledge to achieve goals once we have it. * *1) How to gain initial knowledge* Ah, this is something very cool that I've been working on lately. Pick a particular example of initial knowledge from the example below and we can trace how it is learned and how such learning mechanisms can be implemented. There are many, so I'm not going to try to list them. I thought it would also be more fun for you all to pick one and surprise me. *Let's start with a simple example of 2 (using knowledge we already have and learning more) : Creating a Hello World program* Note that many of the details in how the reasoning is done are left out because 1) they are yet to be determined in detail and 2) the email is long enough without them. *Initial Assumptions: * The agent has some initial knowledge about programs, where one might find information about programming. The agent might have a text book on it. The agent understands what a hello world program is supposed to do. So, what are we solving for if the agent has so many initial capabilities? We're trying to show how the agent reasons about what it already knows to achieve a goal. The goal is to create a program that says hello world. The agent understands this by reasons about statements made in a textbook about the hello world example program. The agent has to plan its actions to achieve the intention write a hello world program. The plan is not a complete step by step plan. It just tells the general direction to go. This is the rough to fine heuristic that human beings often use. From there, does mean's ends analysis, searches for and finds information that might be relevant to the situation at hand, and reasons about what they've done in the past that have help achieve parts of such a goal. The AGI knows that programs can be created through the visual studio's IDE, based on reading about programming in C# (the book he/she has). So, it realizes that it needs to achieve a subgoal of finding visual studio's IDE to use it. It knows it can do this by getting to the computer and clicking on the icon that it knows is associated with visual studio. The program comes up. So, then we ask ourselves what's the next step?. Our brain has marked memories associated with creating programs. It has recorded the fact that we clicked on the file menu to create a new program and that this was part of the process in achieving the goal. So, our memory pulls this fact and executes the action because we have no reasons to not pursue the action in memory. So, to this we go to the file menu and click create a new project. We also pull in relevant information, which says you have to do this that and the other also if we want to create a program. We pull in relevant info from what we read in the text book about what to be careful of and what has to be done, etc. What's next? We want to make the program print out hello world. we recall that we can do this by using the command Console.WriteLine(). and we recall that the thing printed out was in between the parantheses like so: Console.WriteLine(something to print out); So, we hypothesize that if replace what was printed out with hello world that it will work. so we try Console.WriteLine(hello world). it works! hurray. toda. done. Yeah, I know. It's over simplified. But you can see the types of reasoning that are required to achieve such a task. Do this thought experiment on enough problems and generalize what it takes to achieve them (don't try to overgeneralize though!). DO NOT THROW OUT the requirements. You cannot throw out computer vision because you don't know how to implement it. Sensory perception is a requirement for AGI for many reasons. So, just make it an assumption in your design until you can work out the details. We'll do the same thought experiment on computer vision as well to see how it can be integrated with the whole system. For now though, we're just focusing on this simple programming task. * * --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Technological Singularity -- a work in progress
MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) Tues.21.SEP.2010 -- (work in progress) We are now in a strange situation as AI Mind coders. We have created an extremely powerful AI Mind at http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt but we have been so relentlessly in pursuit of basic AI functionality, that many facets of our AI creation remain totally unexplored. Our most recent achievement -- yesterday -- was KB-exhaustive searches of the AI Mind through input queries put to the knowledge base (KB) of the emerging artificial person. The MindForth AI can now discuss its own existence with human users, who may tell the AI about itself and question the AI about its own self-knowledge. The AI Forthmind still exhibits quirky behaviour, but we have the opportunity now to track down each instance of quirkiness and to fix it on the most fundamental level. Simply put, the conceptual activations are out of whack. While the AI exhaustively searches its knowledge base (KB) for answers to questions, stray activations build up on peripheral concepts (not involved in the discussion) until suddenly the accumulating activations override the valid chain of thought and engender a mental aberration, a statement of nonsense. Let us try to solve one particular bug that looks serious. As we ask the newly KB-exhaustive AI What are you? and it answers with I am (this) and I am (that), we notice that, at some point, the verb AM in the responses starts to have zero (0) as its seq tag instead of the psi concept number for the noun at the end of the I am... idea. Such a situation is True-AI intolerable, because every thought of the AI needs to lay down associative tracks for future retrieval and re-assertion of the same idea in its current formulation. -- http://robots.net/person/AI4U/diary/45.html --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] How long until human-level AI?
Our paper How long until human-level AI? Results from an expert assessment (based on a survey done at AGI-09) was finally accepted for publication, in the journal Technological Forecasting Social Change ... See the preprint at http://sethbaum.com/ac/fc_AI-Experts.html -- Ben Goertzel -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org My humanity is a constant self-overcoming -- Friedrich Nietzsche --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: David Jone's Design and Pseudo Tests Methodology: Was David Jone's Design and Psuedo Tests Methodology
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, by the way, it's description not decription. (I am only having some fun! But talk about a psychological slip. What was on your mind when you wrote decription I wonder?) It wasn't death, so it must have had something to do with interpreting women. --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] David Jone's Design and Psuedo Tests Methodology
So give us an example of something that you are going to test, and how your experimental methodology would make it clear that the dots can be connected. On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, I was trying to backup my claim that the current approach is wrong by suggesting the right approach and making a prediction about its prospects. Then, when I do make progress or don't, you can evaluate my claims and decide whether I was right or wrong. On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: But, I also claim that while bottom-up testing of algorithms will give us experience, it also take a very long time to generate AGI solutions. If it takes a group of researchers 5 years to test out a design idea based on neural nets, we may learn something, but I can see from the nature and structure of the problem that it is unlikely to give us enough info to find a solution very quickly. So, my proposal is to adapt to the complexity of the problem and create pseudo designs that can be tested without having to fully implement the idea. I believe that there are design ideas that can be tested without implementing them and that it can be clear from the design and the pseudo tests that the design will work. The reason that many AGI designs must be implemented and can't be proven on paper very easily, is because they are not very good designs. So, it is even clear to the designer that there is a problem and they can't see how to connect the dots and make it work. Instead of realizing that it has flaws, they just think they can get it to work after some is implemented. I think there are better designs that do not have this problem. There are designs where you can see why it will work without having to resort to obscure mathematics and emergence. Those are the sorts of designs that I am confident I can create using my methodology. Dave --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 September 13
Mon.13.SEP.2010 -- Inhibition Revisited We need to go into the MindForth free AI source code and start removing inhibition code from verbs of being, because in clarifying our rules of activation, we have concluded that predicate nominatives should endure inhibition, but not the be-verbs that link to them. Tues.14.SEP.2010 -- Code, Test, Debug In our coding yesterday we switched many times back and forth between debug and test, debug and test. We were aided by our initial search for, and culling out, of current instances of neural inhibition implemented in the NounPhrase, BeVerb, VerbPhrase and EnCog mind-modules. Having formulated yesterday two rules -- that inhibition should occur in pairs, and that reasons for query-response variance should drive inhibition -- we are able now to focus more carefully now on where and why neural inhibition should occur in our open source code for artificial intelligence (AI). In the light of the new rules, we comment out the inhibition code in the EnCog thinking module, because we fear that it may interfere with our troubleshooting. Then we fire up the AI and we put the same question to the AI seven times, with the following results. Human: what are you Robot: I AM ANDRU Human: what are you Robot: I AM ME Human: what are you Robot: I AM ME Human: what are you Robot: I AM ME Human: what are you Robot: I AM ME Human: what are you Robot: I AM ME Human: what are you Robot: I AM ANDRU We interpret the above exchange as showing that the response-idea I AM ANDRU was initially inhibited as a pair of two identical thoughts, one in the innate knowledge of the EnBoot English bootstrap, and one in the response made by the AI when asked, What are you? The inhibiition on the predicate nominative ANDRU lasts so long, that the I AM ANDRU KB-response is suppressed during five subsequent queries, until finally the inhibition of ANDRU has worn off and the AI can once again answer, I AM ANDRU. It is up to the mind-designer and/or AI coder to decide how severely to inhibit ideas in the AI, under considerations such as just how much mind-control do we wish to engage in; what is the proper trade-off between time-duration of inhibited concepts and exhaustive KB-search; and so forth. Right now we are eager to have inhibition strong enough to aid our code-test-debug cycle, and we especially want to verify that each instance of inhibition is happening on the horns of an idea pair (old and new), so that no stray inhibitions are ruining a chain of AI thought. Uh-oh. We've got some good results. Let's upload the code. http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt Meanwhile, here is what happened. In our hovering, looming quest for self-referential thought, we were testing the AI not only by asking what are you but by first telling the AI you are a program. Then we were getting garbage out in response to our what are you queries. But instead of dealing with the central issue (properly implementing inhibition), we tried removing the annoyance of seeing I ARE ME and PROGRAM ARES ME as some actual responses that the AI has issued today. So we went into the VerbPhrase module and inserted the following code. motjuste @ 58 = IF BeVerb EXIT THEN \ BE; 14sep2010 motjuste @ 57 = IF BeVerb EXIT THEN \ AM; 14sep2010 motjuste @ 66 = IF BeVerb EXIT THEN \ IS; 14sep2010 motjuste @ 67 = IF BeVerb EXIT THEN \ ARE; 14sep2010 The above code forces the AI to treat AM IS ARE not as normal, regular verb-forms, but instead to let the BeVerb module enforce strict rules for the usage of forms of the BE verb. Immediately we obtained the following dialog which still has its problems but is on track. Transcript of AI Mind interview at 6 31 38 o'clock on 14 September 2010. Human: you are a program Robot: PROGRAM IS PROGRAM Human: what are you Robot: PROGRAM Human: what are you Robot: I AM PROGRAM Further inspection of the activation-levels indicates that inhibition does not kick in until the AI states the idea, I AM PROGRAM, leaving out the article A because the EnArticle module is not being called. It is an eerie feeling to see the above results, as if the AI Mind is awakening before our very eyes. --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Video of talk I gave yesterday about Cosmism
Hi all, I gave a talk in Teleplace yesterday, about Cosmist philosophy and future technology. A video of the talk is here: http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/ben-goertzel-on-the-cosmist-manifesto-in-teleplace-september-12/ I also put my practice version of the talk, that I did before the real talk, online here: http://www.vimeo.com/14930325 (The practice version is slower-paced than the Teleplace version, and lacks the QA at the end, but it goes through some points in a little more depth.) Of course, the Cosmist Manifesto book says it all in more detail ... links to the book are given along with the first video linked above. thx Ben Goertzel --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] I'm giving a talk on Cosmist philosophy (and related advanced technology) in the Teleplace virtual world...
It's 10AM Pacific time, Sunday September 12 2010 Be there or don't ;-) If you're interested to join the conversation, but haven't used Teleplace before, be sure to download it perhaps 15-30 minutes before the talk, so you can get used to the software. [It's much like Second Life but simpler and more focused on presentation/collaboration...] Thanks much to the great Giulio Prisco for setting it up ;) Ben Goertzel on The Cosmist Manifesto in Teleplace, September 12, 10am PST http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/reminder-ben-goertzel-on-the-cosmist-manifesto-in-teleplace-september-12-10am-pst/ thx Ben --- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Attn: Ben Goertzel -- SINGULARITY ALERT!!!
Hey, Ben. Arthur here. Remember the prediction of the 2012 Singularity? Well, guess what happened. I just had the following conversation with my http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt AI: Human: boys make cars Robot: CARS WHAT ARE CARS Human: boys make guns Robot: GUNS WHAT ARE GUNS Human: boys Robot: THE BOYS MAKE THE CARS Human: boys Robot: THE BOYS MAKE THE GUNS Chief AGI guru Dr. Goertzel! The above is not a cherry-picked, post-mucho experimentation routine test result put out for PR purposes. It just happened during hard-core AI coding. Now, before everybody jumps in and snipes, Aw, there's that crackpot Mentifex again, let me explain the significance of the I/O. I have been coding MindForth AI for twelve years, since 1998 and maybe even earlier. Today on Mon.6.SEP.2010 for the first time I introduced quasi-neuronal inhibition into the free open-source AI source code. Why? A year ago, around August or September of 2009, you and I had our set-to (rumble?) concerning the AGI Roadmap and my posts there which were deleted (rolled back) by Itamar Arel. No biggy. I did not fix Itamar's wagon last Halloween, so I won't fix it this Halloween, either. You see, I was maintaining my own AI Roadmap at http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/RoadMap concurrently with my contributions to you guys' Roadmap. The main thing is, I was entering into the Roadmap Milestone of trying to achieve self-referential thought with my AI. That particular achievement requires covering a lot of ground, not just you and I interactions between the human user and the artificial AI Mind. The AI needs to acquire a general knowledge of the surrounding world, so that man and machine may discuss the AI as a participant in its world. So at the end of 2009 I was coding the ability of the AI to respond to who-queries and what-queries, so that the AI can deal with questions like Who are you? and What are you? Recently I have perceived the need to get the AI to respond with multiple answers to queries about topics where the AI knows not a single fact but multiple facts, such as, What do robots make? I want the AI to be able to say such things as: Robots make cars. Robots make tools. Robots make parts. Robots make robots. It dawned on me a few days ago that the AI software would have to suppress each given answer in order to move on to the next answer available in the knowledge base (KB). In other words, for the first time ever, I had to code _inhibition_ into the AI Mind. Tonight I have done so, and that simple conversation near the top of this message shows the results. The same query, of just the word boys..., elicits two different answers from the KB because each response from the AI goes immediately into inhibition in such a way as to allow access to the next fact queued up in the recesses of the AI KB. This Singularity Alert from Mentifex may generate a collective Huh? from the list readership, but here it is. Bye for now (and back to the salt mines :-) Arthur -- http://AiMind-i.com http://code.google.com/p/mindforth http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 http://robots.net/person/AI4U/diary/40.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/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Use Combinations of Constrained Methods
Various programs in the past have been very successful with problems that were tightly constrained. Sorry I don't have some examples however, I do not think this is a controversial assertion. The reason why these programs worked was that they could assess any number of possibilities that the problem space offered in a very short period of time. I think that this kind of problem model could be used in a test of a program to see if the basic idea of the program was worthwhile. Under these circumstances, where the possibilities are limited, the computer program can use an exhaustive search of the possibilities to test how good possible solutions looked. Although many problems do not have a way to immediately rate the value of the best candidates for a solution, the majority of the candidates typically can be eliminated. An awareness of these limited successes is important because it gives us some sense of what the solution might look like. On the other hand, the application of these limited successes to the real world is so limited that it may seem that they offer little that is worthwhile. I believe that is wrong. Suppose that you had a variety of methods of image analysis that were useful in different circumstances but these circumstances were very limited. By developing programs that combine these different methods you could have a set of methods that might produce insight about an image that no one particular method could produce, but the extended circumstances where insight could be produced would be unusual and it would still not produce the kinds of results that you would want. Now suppose that you just kept working on this project, finding other methods that produced some kinds of useful information for particular circumstances. As you continued working in this way two things would likely occur. Each new method would tend to be a little less useful and the complexity that would result from combining these methods would be a little more overwhelming for the computer to examine the possibilities. At some point, no matter how productive you were, your sense of progress would come to an end. At that point some genuine advancements would be necessary, but if you got to that point you might find that some of those advancements were waiting for you (if you had enough insight to realize it). Jim Bromer --- 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
[agi] Very Cool Object Name Intent Test
I just came up with an awesome test. Ask someone, anyone you know to name something really big and obvious around them that they already know the position of. Tell them to point to it and name it. Practically *every* time, they will look at it just before or as they are naming it! And it feels incredibly uncomfortable not to look at what you are naming as you are trying to communicate that. These are the sorts of built in cues that children require to learn language. The children know when they are being addressed, and they know how to narrow the possible things that you intend to refer to when talking to them. Pointing gestures, eye movements, etc. They all are very strong *tells* (like in poker) regarding the intent of your speech. We are constantly analyzing the actual intent of speakers and then interpreting what they say. This is how children and adults learn language and gain experience :) I'm working on a rough to fine model of this in my Pseudo AGI design. --- 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
[agi] Pseudo Design as a Solution to AGI Design
I've been to think lately that the solution to creating a realistic AGI design is psuedo design. What do I mean? Not simulation... not practical applications... not extremely detailed implementations. The design would start at a high level and go deeper into detail as possible. So, why would this be a solution? Well, before I mention the cons to this approach, consider the following: *Problems it would solve:* 1) There is no money and little interest for AGI. Even if you could get money, I am 99.99% sure it would be spent wrong. I know, I know... I'm supposed to be trying to get us money, not dissuade it. But, I really think we are repeating the mistakes of earlier researchers that promised too much on unjustified ideas. Then when they failed, it created AI winters, over and over and over again. History repeats itself. So, getting us more money would likely do harm in addition to too little good, the way it would be spent, for me to care. Extremely few people are interested in AGI and among those that are, their ideas about it are very, very flawed. We tend to approach the problem using our typical heuristics and problem solving techniques, but the problem is no longer amenable to these techniques. For example, the idea that patterns finding is sufficient for intelligence. It has not been proven beyond my reasonable arguments against it. Yet, people are getting funding and pursuing entire architectures based on it. Does that really make sense? Nope. We must pseudo test and pseudo design our algorithms first. Why? Because after spending several years on these designs that I can reasonably predict will fail with a high likelihood, we'll be back as the same place we were. Wouldn't we be much better off figuring that out earlier rather than later through fast prototyping techniques, such as the one I mentioned (pseudo design and testing)? 2) Implementations tend to get overwhelmed by the desire to show immediate results or achieve practical short-term goals. This completely throws off AGI implementations, because these other constraints are not compatible with more important AGI constraints. 3) We could find a solution much faster... AGI is a massively constrained CSP (Constraint Satisfaction Problem). The eternity puzzle is a great example of such a problem. If you approach the eternity puzzle using heuristics alone to generate a likely solution, such as how pretty the pattern is, or how plausible it is that the designers created this design, it is guaranteed to fail. This is especially true if it takes you even a few minutes to reject the design. The puzzle has so many possibilities that if you were to try to look at each one to see if it was a solution, it would literally take an eternity. So, how do you solve such problems? You start with the most constrained parts of the puzzle first, and you use heuristics to guide your search for solutions paths that are likely to contain a solution and avoid solutions paths that are less likely to contain a solution. Most importantly, you have to try a lot of solutions and reject the bad ones quickly, so that you can get to the right one. How does this apply to AGI? It's almost exactly the same. Current researchers are spending a lot of time on solutions that were generated using bad heuristics (unjustifiable human reasoning heuristics). Then they take forever to test them out (years) before they inevitably fail. A better way is to test solutions with as minimal effort and time as possible, such as by using pseudo design and testing techniques. This way you can settle onto the right solution path much, much faster and not waste time on a solution that clearly wouldn't work if you simply spent a bit more time analyzing it. Yes, such an approach has problems also, such as dishonesty or delusion in how the algorithms would actually work. I'll mention these more below. But, we have those delusions and problems already :) So, overall, this approach seems to be significantly better. 4) if we could show that a pseudo AGI design works in sufficient detail and with sufficient plausibility, it would likely change the minds of: -many people that don't think AGI is possible, -those that think it isn't possible in their lifetimes, and -those that think it isn't worth investing in. In other words... we would get the money, help and interest needed to make it happen. Demos are great at generating interest in things that are very complicated. This would be a fantastic demonstration. *Pros:* 1) Fast design testing and rejection 2) Rough to fine design... would arrive at a solution faster because it uses the *Most*-*Constrained*-Variable-First heuristic (such as has been used to solve the eternity puzzle... you solve the most constrained portion first to avoid having to try out many possibilities that will fail at the most constrained part). 3) Less pressure for practical applications and more focus on important AGI issues... this removes extra constraints
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] Wow.... just wow. (Adaptive AI)
I accidentally stumbled upon the website of Adaptive AI. I must say, it is by FAR the best AGI approach and design I have ever seen. As I'm read it today and yesterday (haven't quite finished it all), I agreed with so much of what he wrote that I could almost swear that I wrote it myself. He even uses the key word I've begun to use myself, which is explicit AGI design. This dude is awesome. If you haven't read about it yet, please do: http://www.adaptiveai.com/research/index.htm Dave PS: I don't agree with absolutely everything per say, such as the fuzzy pattern matching stuff... because I just don't understand the specifics, pros and cons of it to agree or disagree. But, damn, this guy got enough of it right that I have to applaud him regardless of the other details. --- 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
[agi] Human Reasoning Examples
Does anyone know of a list, book or links about human reasoning examples? I'm having such a hard time finding info on this. I don't want to have to create all the examples myself. but I don't know where to look. --- 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
[agi] Alternative way to reverse engineer the brain
Has anyone thought about sort of self-assembling nano electrodes or other nano detectors that could probe the vast majority of neurons and important structures in a very small brain (such as a gnat brain or a C. Elegans worm, or even a larger animal)? It seems to me that this would be a hell of a lot easier than simulating a brain, since there are waay too many factors and dynamics involved to get the simulation to be accurate. Maybe we could just invent a way to probe every part of the brain in vivo. Dave --- 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
[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
[agi] Language Acquisition TV Special
I've become extremely fascinated with language acquisition. I am convinced that we can tease out the algorithms that children use to learn language from observations like the ones seen in the video link below. I'm about to start watching the second video, but thought you guys might like watching this too :) Check it out! Also, if you haven't done so yet, check out William O'Grady's book How Children Learn Language. I love that book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZatrvNDOiENR=1 Dave --- 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
[agi] Who's on first?
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=who%27s+on+firstei=utf-8fr=ie8 YouTube - Who's on first? --- 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
[agi] Students' Understanding of the Equal Sign Not Equal, Professor Says
Students' Understanding of the Equal Sign Not Equal, Professor Says http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122200.htm The equal sign is pervasive and fundamentally linked to mathematics from kindergarten through upper-level calculus, Robert M. Capraro says. The idea of symbols that convey relative meaning, such as the equal sign and less than and greater than signs, is complex and they serve as a precursor to ideas of variables, which also require the same level of abstract thinking. The problem is students memorize procedures without fully understanding the mathematics, he notes. Students who have learned to memorize symbols and who have a limited understanding of the equal sign will tend to solve problems such as 4+3+2=( )+2 by adding the numbers on the left, and placing it in the parentheses, then add those terms and create another equal sign with the new answer, he explains. So the work would look like 4+3+2=(9)+2=11. This response has been called a running equal sign -- similar to how a calculator might work when the numbers and equal sign are entered as they appear in the sentence, he explains. However, this understanding is incorrect. The correct solution makes both sides equal. So the understanding should be 4+3+2=(7)+2. Now both sides of the equal sign equal 9. --- 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
[agi] Probabilty Processor
--- quotes The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency financed the basic research necessary to create a processor that thinks in terms of probabilities instead of the certainties of ones and zeros. (...) So we have been rebuilding probability computing from the gate level all the way up to the processor. (...) The probability processing that Lyric has invented doesn't do the on/off processing of a normal logic circuit, but rather makes transistors function more like tiny dimmer switches, letting electron flow rates represent the probability of something happening. (...) Reynolds says that a data center filled with servers that are calculating probabilities for, say, a financial model, will be able to consolidate from thousands of servers down to a single GP5 appliance to calculate probabilities. (...) Digital logic that takes 500 transistors to do a probability multiply operation, for instance, can be done with just a few transistors on the Lyric chips. With an expected factor of 1,000 improvement over general purpose CPUs running probability algorithms, the energy savings of using GP5s instead of, say, x64 chips will be immense. (...) programming language, which is called Probability Synthesis to Bayesian Logic, or PSBL for short. --- Hm. Wow? (DARPA funds Mr Spock on a Chip) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/17/lyric_probability_processor/ --- 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
[agi] Re: [agi] P≠NP
Does anyone have any comments on this proof? I don't have the mathematical background to tell if it is correct. But it seems related to the idea from algorithmic information theory that the worst case complexity for any algorithm is equal to the average case for compressed inputs. Then to show that P != NP you would show that SAT (specifically 9-SAT) with compressed inputs has exponential average case complexity. That is not quite the approach the paper takes, probably because compression is not computable. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Kaj Sotala xue...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 2:18:13 AM Subject: [agi] Re: [agi] P≠NP 2010/8/12 John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com BTW here is the latest one: http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf See also: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~stansife/pnp.html - brief summary of the proof Discussion about whether it's correct: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/a-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/issues-in-the-proof-that-p?np/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/deolalikar-responds-to-issues-about-his-p≠np-proof/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1585850 Wiki page summarizing a lot of the discussion, as well as collecting many of the links above: http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar%27s_P!%3DNP_paper#Does_the_argument_prove_too_much.3F --- 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 * Open Link in New Tab * Download --- 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
[agi] Digital incremental transmissions
Long ago I figured out how to build digital incremental transmissions. What are they? Imagine a sausage-shaped structure with the outside being many narrow reels of piano wire, with electrical and computer connections on the end. Under computer control, each of the rings can be independently controlled to rotate a specific distance playing one strand out while reeling another strand in, pull a specific amount, or execute a long coordinated sequence of moves. Further, this is a true infinitely-variable transmission, so that if you command a ring to turn REALLY slowly, you can exert nearly limitless force, or at least enough to destroy the structure. Hence, obvious software safeguards are needed. Lowering a weight recovers the energy to use elsewhere, or return out the supply lines. In short, a complete android musculature could be build this way, and take only a tiny amount of space - MUCH less than in our bodies, or with motors as is now the case. Little heat would be generated because this system is fundamentally efficient. Nearly all of the components are cut from flat metal stock, akin to mechanical clock parts, only with much beefier shapes. Hence, it is both cheap and strong. Think horsepower, available from any strand. The strand pairs would be hooded up to be flexor and extensor muscles for the many joints, etc. I haven't actually built it because I haven't (yet) found a customer who wanted it badly m enough to pay the development costs and then wait a year for it. However, this would sure make be an enabling system for people who want to build REAL robots. Does anyone here have ANY idea what to do with this, other than putting it back on the shelf and waiting another decade? Steve --- 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
[agi] Neuroplasticity Explanation Hypothesis
I just had this really interesting idea about neuroplasticity as I'm sitting here listening to a speeches at the Singularity Summit. I was trying to figure out how neuroplasticity works and why the hell is it that the brain can find the same patterns in input from completely different senses. For example, if born without eyes, we can see with touch. If born without hearing and vision, we can also see and hear with touch! (an example of this is a blind and deaf person putting their hand on your mouth and neck to detect and understand your speech. this is a real example). How the hell does the brain do that?! The brain knows how to process certain inputs just the right way. For example, it knows to group things by color or that faces have certain special meanings. How does it know to process this sensory input the right way? I don't think it's purely pattern recognition. Actually, it cannot be just pattern recognition alone. So, I realized that it would make sense that cells don't create a network and wait for input. The cells are not specialized *before* they get sensory inputs or other types of input (such as input from nearby cells). These cells specialize AFTER receiving input! That means that our DNA defines what patterns we should look for and how to process those patterns. Guess what that means! That means that if these patterns come from completely different sensory organs, the brain can still recognize the patterns and the cells that receive these patterns can specialize just right to process them a certain way! That would perfectly (so I believe) explain neuroplasticity. Basically, it is a side-effect of the specific design of our brains. But, it means that the brain is not just a pattern recognizer. It has built-in knowledge which is absolutely essential to process inputs correctly. This supports my hypothesis that artificial neural nets are not correctly design to be able to achieve AGI the way the brain does. This would also explain my beliefs that the brain knows how to process in ways that correctly represent true real-world relationships. It would also explain why this processing can self assemble correctly. The knowledge for how to process inputs is built in(my hypothesis), but it self assembles only when inputs that have certain patterns and chemical signals are presented to the cells. This would explain the confusion for between purely self-assembling models and built-in knowledge of how certain patterns or input should be processed. Clearly, the brain does not evolve to process world input correctly every single time a person is born. We solved this problem already through our DNA and billions of years of evolution. So, the solutions to the problems are built into our DNA. This would also explain how the brain is able to handle other important functions such as: memory, hierarchical relationships, etc. When the brain detects the need and the right patterns of specialized cells, it can then create even more specialized cells or cellular changes to perform: memory and other important brain functions. I also came up with an interesting idea to explain why people go into comas. I could be completely off. It's just an uneducated guess. The cause of comas could be that the brain circuit that controls attention has been damaged. The attention part of the brain probably drives everything by deciding what circuits to activate and why! Without that circuit creating activity, the brain's neurons have no reason to fire normally and the brain's normal activity does not occur. Dave --- 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
There is one further point which is absolutely fundamental in operating system/compiler theory. The user should be unaware of how the work is divided up. A robot may simply have a WiFi router and very little else, or it might have considerable on board processing. The user should not be aware of this. = 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
[agi] Grand Cooperative Projects
like this ( the Genome Project): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?_r=1themc=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 speculate on what could be common ground in AGI associated robotics. Common technological approaches, like the common protocols for robots suggested here, seem to me vulnerable to the probability that the chosen technologies may be simply wrong for AGI. --- 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
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: 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.) 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 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -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/?; 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
It would be easy to relativize a weighted network so that it could be used to include ideas that can effectively reshape the network (or at least reshape the virtual network) but it is not easy to see how this could be done intelligently enough to produce actual intelligence. But maybe I should try it sometime just to get some idea of what it would do. Jim Bromer --- 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
[agi] Single Neurons Can Detect Sequences
Single Neurons Can Detect Sequences http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100812151632.htm --- 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
[agi] Re: [agi] P≠NP
2010/8/12 John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com BTW here is the latest one: http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf See also: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~stansife/pnp.html - brief summary of the proof Discussion about whether it's correct: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/a-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/issues-in-the-proof-that-p?np/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/deolalikar-responds-to-issues-about-his-p≠np-proof/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1585850 Wiki page summarizing a lot of the discussion, as well as collecting many of the links above: http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar%27s_P!%3DNP_paper#Does_the_argument_prove_too_much.3F --- 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
Just two quick comments. CCTV is already networked, the Police can track smoothly from one camera to another. Second comment is that if you (say) taking a heavy load upstairs you need 2 robots one holding each end. A single PC can control them both. In fact a robot workshop will be a kind of cloud, in terms of cloud computing. - Ian Parker On 12 August 2010 05:46, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: 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 https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
Someone who really believes that P=NP should go to Saudi Arabia or the Emirates and crack the Blackberry code. - Ian Parker On 12 August 2010 06:10, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts David, I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer- related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required mathemagic then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by sanitized formal representations any more than saying that your message is a sanitized formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John at that point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. I don't know if we need to create some new mathemagics, a breakthrough, or whatever. I just think using existing math to engineer it, using the math like if was software is what should be done. But you may be right perhaps proof of P=NP something similar is needed. I don't think so though. The main goal would be to leverage existing math to compensate for unnecessary and/or impossible computation. We don't need to re-evolve the wheel as we already figured that out. And computers are v. slow compared to other physical computations that are performed in the natural physical world. Maybe not - developing a system from scratch that discovers all of the discoveries over the millennia of science and civilization? Would that be possible? I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions would make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way beyond where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a simulation of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A simulation is not the same as the actual thing.) I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is to it. I have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't expect you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in mind for future discussions. Using available skills and tools the best we can use them. And, inventing new tools by engineering utilitarian and efficient mathematical structure. Math is just like software in all this but way more powerful. And using the right math, the most general where it is called for and specific/narrow when needed. I don't see a problem with the specific most of the time but I don't know if many people get the general. Though it may be an error or lack of understanding on my part... 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/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: [agi] P≠NP
This is a very powerful argument, but is not quite a rigorous proof. Thermodynamics is like saying that because all zeros below 10^20 have a real part of 0.5 therefore there are no non trivial zeros for which that is not the case. What I am saying is pedantic, very pedantic but will still affect Clay's view of the matter. You will *not* be able to decode Blackberry, of course. - Ian Parker 2010/8/12 John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com BTW here is the latest one: http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] 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 Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM To: agi 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 | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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
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 Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:17 PM To: agi 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 Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM To: agi 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 | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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
[agi] Fwd: [singularity] NEWS: Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+
-- Forwarded message -- From: Natasha Vita-More nata...@natasha.cc Date: Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:02 PM Subject: [singularity] NEWS: Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+ To: singularity singular...@v2.listbox.com Friends, It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of Directors of Humanity+. Today is the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for Max as a new Board member. Voting opens this weekend! Please join now! http://humanityplus.org/join/ Thank you for your support of Max! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc/ (If you have any questions, please email me off list.) *singularity* | Archiveshttps://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org 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. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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
We are getting down to some of the nitty gritty. To a considerable extent
what is holding robotics back is the lack of common standards. We can think
about what we might need. One would instinctively start with a CAD/CAM
package like ProEngineer. We can thus descibe a robot in terms of assembles
and parts. A single joint is a part, a human finger has 3 joints is an
assembly. A hand is an assembly. We get this by using CAD.
A robotic language has to be composed as follows.
class Part{
}
class Assemble{
}
An assembly/part will have a position. The simplest command is to move from
one position to another. Note that a position is a multidimensional quantity
and describes the positions of each part.
*Pick up ball* is a complex command. We first have to localise the ball,
determine the position required to grasp the ball any then put the parts
into a position so that the ball moves into a new position.
Sounds complicated? Yes it is, but a lot of the basic work has already been
done. The first time a task is performed the system would have to compute
from first principles. The second time it would have some stored positions.
The system could *learn*.
A position is a vector (multidimensional) 2 robots will have twice the
dimensions of a single robot.
*Move bed upstairs* is a twin robot problem, but no different in principle
from a single robot problem. Above all I think we must start off
mathematically and construct a language of maximum generality. It should be
pointed out too that there programs which will evaluate forces in a
multi-limb environment. In fact matrix theory was devised in the 19th
century.
- Ian Parker
On 12 August 2010 15:17, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
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 johnr...@polyplexic.com
*Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM
*To:* agi 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* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/|
Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription
http://www.listbox.com
*agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/|
Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription
http://www.listbox.com
*agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription
http://www.listbox.com
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, There is obvious confusion here. MOST mutations harm, but occasionally one helps. By selecting for a particular difficult-to-achieve thing, like long lifespan, we can discard the harmful mutations while selecting for the helpful ones. However, selecting for something harmful and easy to achieve, like the presence of genes that shorten lifespan, the selection process is SO non-specific that it can't tell us much of anything. There are countless mutations that kill WITHOUT conferring compensatory advantages. I could see stressing the flies in various ways without controlling for lifespan, but controlling for short lifespan in the absence of such stresses would seem to be completely worthless. Of course, once stressed, you would also be seeing genes to combat those (irrelevant) stresses. In short, I still haven't heard words that suggest that this can go anywhere, though it sure would be wonderful (like you and I might live twice as long) if some workable path could be found. I still suspect that the best path is in analyzing the DNA of long-living people, rather than that of fruit flies. Perhaps there is some way to combine the two approaches? Steve On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.com wrote: Ben, It seems COMPLETELY obvious (to me) that almost any mutation would shorten lifespan, so we shouldn't expect to learn much from it. Why then do the Methuselah flies live 5x as long as normal flies? You're conjecturing this is unrelated to the dramatically large number of SNPs with very different frequencies in the two classes of populations??? ben *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Bryan, *I'm interested!* Continuing... On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bishop kanz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote: Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included. You might be inerested in this- I've been putting together an adopt-a-lab-rat program that is actually an adoption program for lab mice. ... then it is an adopt-a-mouse program? I don't know if you are a *Pinky and the Brain* fan, but calling your project something like *The Pinky Project* would be catchy. In some cases mice that are used as a control group in experiments are then discarded at the end of the program because, honestly, their lifetime is over more or less, so the idea is that some people might be interested in adopting these mice. I had several discussions with the folks at the U of W whose job it was to euthanize those mice. Their worries seemed to center in two areas: 1. Financial liability, e.g. a mouse bites a kid, whose finger becomes infected and... 2. Social liability, e.g. some kids who are torturing them put their videos on the Internet. Of course, you can also just pony up the $15 and get one from Jackson Labs. Not the last time I checked. They are very careful NOT to sell them to exactly the same population that I intend to supply them to - high-school kids. I expect that if I became a middleman, that they would simply stop selling to me. Even I would have a hard time purchasing them, because they only sell to genuine LABS. I haven't fully launced adopt-a-lab-rat yet because I am still trying to figure out how to avoid ending up in a situation where I have hundreds of rats and rodents running around my apartment and I get the short end of the stick (oops). *What is your present situation and projections? How big a volume could you supply? What are their approximate ages? Do they have really good documentation? Were they used in any way that might compromise anti-aging experiments, e.g. raised in a nicer-than-usual-laboratory environment? Do you have any liability concerns as discussed above? * Mice in the wild live ~4 years. Lab mice live ~2 years. If you take a young lab mouse and do everything you can to extend its life, you can approach 4 years. If you take an older lab mouse and do everything you can, you double the REMAINDER of their life, e.g. starting with a one-year-old mouse, you could get it to live ~3 years. How much better (or worse) than this you do is the basis for judging by the Methuselah Mouse people. Hence, really good documentation is needed to establish when they were born, and when they left a laboratory environment. Tattoos or tags link the mouse to the paperwork. If I/you/we are to get kids to compete to develop better anti-aging methods, the mice need to be documented well enough to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did what they claimed they did. Steve --- 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] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] 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 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. 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. 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.) 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 *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, Genescient has NOT paralleled human mating habits that would predictably shorten life. They have only started from a point well beyond anything achievable in the human population, and gone on from there. Hence, while their approach may find some interesting things, it is unlikely to find the things that are now killing our elderly population. Continuing... On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I should dredge up and forward past threads with them. There are some flaws in their chain of reasoning, so that it won't be all that simple to sort the few relevant from the many irrelevant mutations. There is both a huge amount of noise, and irrelevant adaptations to their environment and their treatment. They have evolved many different populations in parallel, using the same fitness criterion. This provides powerful noise filtering Multiple measurements improve the S/N ratio by the square root of the number of measurements. Hence, if they were to develop 100 parallel populations, they could expect to improve their S/N ratio by 10:1. They haven't done 100 parallel populations, and they need much better than 10:1 improvement to the S/N ratio. Of course, this is all aside from the fact that their signal is wrong because of the different mating habits. Even when the relevant mutations are eventually identified, it isn't clear how that will map to usable therapies for the existing population. yes, that's a complex matter Further, most of the things that kill us operate WAY too slowly to affect fruit flies, though there are some interesting dual-affecting problems. Fruit flies get all the major ailments that kill people frequently, except cancer. heart disease, neurodegenerative disease, respiratory problems, immune problems, etc. Curiously, the list of conditions that they DO exhibit appears to be the SAME list as people with reduced body temperatures exhibit. This suggests simply correcting elderly people's body temperatures as they crash. Then, where do we go from there? Note that as you get older, your risk of contracting cancer rises dramatically - SO dramatically that the odds of you eventually contracting it are ~100%. Meanwhile, the risks of the other diseases DECREASE as you get older past a certain age, so if you haven't contracted them by ~80, then you probably never will contract them. Scientific American had an article a while back about people in Israel who are 100 years old. At ~100, your risk of dieing during each following year DECREASES with further advancing age!!! This strongly suggests some early-killers, that if you somehow escape them, you can live for quite a while. Our breeding practices would certainly invite early-killers. Of course, only a very tiny segment of the population lives to be 100. As I have posted in the past, what we have here in the present human population is about the equivalent of a fruit fly population that was bred for the shortest possible lifespan. Certainly not. ??? Not what? We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only from young flies. In any case, since the sociology of humans is SO much different than that of fruit flies, and breeding practices interact so much with sociology, e.g. the bright colorings of birds, beards (that I have commented on before), etc. In short, I would expect LOTS of mutations from young-bread groups, but entirely different mutations in people than in fruit flies. I suspect that there is LOTS more information in the DNA of healthy people 100 than there is in any population of fruit flies. Perhaps, data from fruit flies could then be used to reduce the noise from the limited human population who lives to be 100? Anyway, if someone has thought this whole thing out, I sure haven't seen it. Sure there is probably lots to be learned from genetic approaches, but Genescient's approach seems flawed by its simplicity. The challenge here is as always. The value of such research to us is VERY high, yet there is no meaningful funding. If/when an early AI becomes available to help in such efforts, there simply won't be any money available to divert it away from defense (read that: offense) work. Steve --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only from young flies. Michael rose's UCI lab has evolved flies specifically for short lifespan, but the results may not be published yet... --- 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] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
David, I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer-related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required mathemagic then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by sanitized formal representations any more than saying that your message is a sanitized formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John at that point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions would make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way beyond where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a simulation of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A simulation is not the same as the actual thing.) I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is to it. I have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't expect you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in mind for future discussions. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] 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 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. 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. While the idea in this example would be associated with a fairly strong notion of meaning
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
Jim, Fair enough. My apologies then. I just often see your posts on SAT or other very formal math problems and got the impression that you thought this was at the core of AGI's problems and that pursuing a fast solution to NP-complete problems is the best way to solve it. At least, that was my impression. So, my thought was that such formal methods don't seem to be a complete solution at all and other factors, such as uncertainty, could make such formal solutions ineffective or unusable. Which is why I said it's important to analyze the requirements of the problem and then apply a solution. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: David, I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer-related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required mathemagic then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by sanitized formal representations any more than saying that your message is a sanitized formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John at that point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions would make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way beyond where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a simulation of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A simulation is not the same as the actual thing.) I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is to it. I have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't expect you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in mind for future discussions. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] 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
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. I agree that disassociated theories have not proved to be very successful at AGI, but then again what has? I would use a mathematical method that gave me the number or percentage of True cases that satisfy a propositional formula as a way to check the internal logic of different combinations of logic-based conjectures. Since methods that can do this with logical variables for any logical system that goes (a little) past 32 variables are feasible the potential of this method should be easy to check (although it would hit a rather low ceiling of scalability). So I do think that logic and other mathematical methods would help in true AGI programs. However, the other major problem, as I see it, is one of application. And strangely enough, this application problem is so pervasive, that it means that you cannot even develop artificial opinions! You can program the computer to jump on things that you expect it to see, and you can program it to create theories about random combinations of objects, but how could you have a true opinion without child-level judgement? This may sound like frivolous philosophy but I think it really shows that the starting point isn't totally beyond us. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't. For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] 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 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. For instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking
[agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
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 streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. --- 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] Scalable vs Diversifiable
I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
I think I may understand where the miscommunication occurred. When we talk about scaling up an AGI program we are - of course - referrring to improving on an AGI program that can work effectively with a very limited amount of referential knowledge so that it would be able to handle a much greater diversification of referential knowledge. You might say that is what scalability means. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable
To respond in kind ,you along with virtually all AGI-ers show an inability to understand or define the problems of AGI - i.e. the end-problems that an AGI must face, the problems of creativity vs rationality. You only actually deal in standard, narrow AI problems. If you don't understand what a new machine must do, all your technical knowledge of machines to date may be irrelevant. And in your case, I can't think of any concerns of yours like complexity that have anything to do with AGI problems at all - nor have you ever tried to relate them to any actual AGI problems. So we're well-matched in inability - except that in creative matters, knowledge of the problems-to-be-solved always takes priority over knowledge of entirely irrelevant solutions. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:43 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Scalable vs Diversifiable I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented around a consumer definition of a goal, because it involves a fundamental comprehension of the tools available to achieve that goal. I appreciate 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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 streets, it's AGI if it's diversifiable - or rather can diversify itself - if it can then navigate its way through a forest, or a strange maze - without being programmed anew. A system is AGI if it can diversify from one kind of task/activity to another different kind - as humans and animals do - without being additionally programmed . Scale is irrelevant and deflects attention from the real problem. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok, maybe not truly brilliant, but highly insightful and perspicuously intelligent... Or at least interesting to the cognoscenti maybe?.. Well, they were interesting to me at least.) Ok, these two interesting-to-me comments made by me are interesting because they suggest that we do not know how to program a computer even to create opinions. Or if we do, there is a big untapped difference between those programs that show nascent judgement (perhaps only at levels relative to the domain of their capabilities) and those that don't. This is AGI programmer's utopia. (Or at least my utopia). Because I need to find something that is simple enough for me to start with and which can lend itself to develop and test theories of AGI judgement and scalability. By allowing an AGI program to participate more in the selection of its own primitive 'interests' we will be able to interact with it, both as programmer and as user, to guide it toward selecting those interests which we can understand and seem interesting to us. By creating an AGI program that has a faculty for primitive judgement (as we might envision such an ability), and then testing the capabilities in areas where the program seems to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able to understand what interests the program is pursuing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. I agree that disassociated theories have not proved to be very successful at AGI, but then again what has? I would use a mathematical method that gave me the number or percentage of True cases that satisfy a propositional formula as a way to check the internal logic of different combinations of logic-based conjectures. Since methods that can do this with logical variables for any logical system that goes (a little) past 32 variables are feasible the potential of this method should be easy to check (although it would hit a rather low ceiling of scalability). So I do think that logic and other mathematical methods would help in true AGI programs. However, the other major problem, as I see it, is one of application. And strangely enough, this application problem is so pervasive, that it means that you cannot even develop artificial opinions! You can program the computer to jump on things that you expect it to see, and you can program it to create theories about random combinations of objects, but how could you have a true opinion without child-level judgement? This may sound like frivolous philosophy but I think it really shows that the starting point isn't totally beyond us. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote: You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has made me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires understand the constraints that problems impose on a solution. So, it's sort of a unbelievably complex constraint satisfaction problem. What we've been talking about is how we come up with solutions to these problems when we sometimes aren't actually trying to solve any of the real problems. As I've been trying to articulate lately is that in order to satisfy the constraints of the problems AGI imposes, we must really understand the problems we want to solve and how they can be solved(their constraints). I think that most of us do not do this because the problem is so complex, that we refuse to attempt to understand all of its constraints. Instead we focus on something very small and manageable with fewer constraints. But, that's what creates narrow AI, because the constraints you have developed the solution for only apply to a narrow set of problems. Once you try to apply it to a different problem that imposes new, incompatible constraints, the solution fails. So, lately I've been pushing for people to truly analyze the problems involved in AGI, step by step to understand what the constraints are. I think this is the only way we will develop a solution that is guaranteed to work without wasting undo time in trial and error. I don't think trial and error approaches will work. We must know what the constraints are, instead of guessing at what solutions might approximate the constraints. I think the problem space is too large to guess. Of course, I think acquisition of knowledge through automated means is the first step in understanding these constraints. But, unfortunately, few agree with me. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok, maybe not truly brilliant, but highly insightful and perspicuously intelligent... Or at least interesting to the cognoscenti maybe?.. Well, they were interesting to me at least.) Ok, these two interesting-to-me comments made by me are interesting because they suggest that we do not know how to program a computer even to create opinions. Or if we do, there is a big untapped difference between those programs that show nascent judgement (perhaps only at levels relative to the domain of their capabilities) and those that don't. This is AGI programmer's utopia. (Or at least my utopia). Because I need to find something that is simple enough for me to start with and which can lend itself to develop and test theories of AGI judgement and scalability. By allowing an AGI program to participate more in the selection of its own primitive 'interests' we will be able to interact with it, both as programmer and as user, to guide it toward selecting those interests which we can understand and seem interesting to us. By creating an AGI program that has a faculty for primitive judgement (as we might envision such an ability), and then testing the capabilities in areas where the program seems to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able to understand what interests the program is pursuing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of such mathematical problems? We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I would need some evidence to think otherwise. I agree that disassociated theories have not proved to be very successful at AGI, but then again what has? I would use a mathematical method that gave me the number or percentage of True cases that satisfy a propositional formula as a way to check the internal logic of different combinations of logic-based conjectures. Since methods that can do this with logical variables for any logical system that goes (a little) past 32 variables are feasible the potential of this method should be easy to check (although it would hit a rather low ceiling of scalability). So I do think that logic
Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
I guess what I was saying was that I can test my mathematical theory and my theories about primitive judgement both at the same time by trying to find those areas where the program seems to be good at something. For example, I found that it was easy to write a program that found outlines where there was some contrast between a solid object and whatever was in the background or whatever was in the foreground. Now I, as an artist could use that to create interesting abstractions. However, that does not mean that an AGI program that was supposed to learn and acquire greater judgement based on my ideas for a primitive judgement would be able to do that. Instead, I would let it do what it seemed good at, so long as I was able to appreciate what it was doing. Since this would lead to something - a next step at least - I could use this to test my theory that a good more general SAT solution would be useful as well. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has made me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires understand the constraints that problems impose on a solution. So, it's sort of a unbelievably complex constraint satisfaction problem. What we've been talking about is how we come up with solutions to these problems when we sometimes aren't actually trying to solve any of the real problems. As I've been trying to articulate lately is that in order to satisfy the constraints of the problems AGI imposes, we must really understand the problems we want to solve and how they can be solved(their constraints). I think that most of us do not do this because the problem is so complex, that we refuse to attempt to understand all of its constraints. Instead we focus on something very small and manageable with fewer constraints. But, that's what creates narrow AI, because the constraints you have developed the solution for only apply to a narrow set of problems. Once you try to apply it to a different problem that imposes new, incompatible constraints, the solution fails. So, lately I've been pushing for people to truly analyze the problems involved in AGI, step by step to understand what the constraints are. I think this is the only way we will develop a solution that is guaranteed to work without wasting undo time in trial and error. I don't think trial and error approaches will work. We must know what the constraints are, instead of guessing at what solutions might approximate the constraints. I think the problem space is too large to guess. Of course, I think acquisition of knowledge through automated means is the first step in understanding these constraints. But, unfortunately, few agree with me. Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok, maybe not truly brilliant, but highly insightful and perspicuously intelligent... Or at least interesting to the cognoscenti maybe?.. Well, they were interesting to me at least.) Ok, these two interesting-to-me comments made by me are interesting because they suggest that we do not know how to program a computer even to create opinions. Or if we do, there is a big untapped difference between those programs that show nascent judgement (perhaps only at levels relative to the domain of their capabilities) and those that don't. This is AGI programmer's utopia. (Or at least my utopia). Because I need to find something that is simple enough for me to start with and which can lend itself to develop and test theories of AGI judgement and scalability. By allowing an AGI program to participate more in the selection of its own primitive 'interests' we will be able to interact with it, both as programmer and as user, to guide it toward selecting those interests which we can understand and seem interesting to us. By creating an AGI program that has a faculty for primitive judgement (as we might envision such an ability), and then testing the capabilities in areas where the program seems to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able to understand what interests the program is pursuing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What reason do
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, It seems COMPLETELY obvious (to me) that almost any mutation would shorten lifespan, so we shouldn't expect to learn much from it. What particular lifespan-shortening mutations are in the human genome wouldn't be expected to be the same, or even the same as separated human populations. Hmmm, an interesting thought: I wonder if certain racially mixed people have shorter lifespans because they have several disjoint sets of such mutations?!!! Any idea where to find such data? It has long been noticed that some racial subgroups do NOT have certain age-related illnesses, e.g. Japanese don't have clogged arteries, but they DO have lots of cancer. So far everyone has been blindly presuming diet, but seeking a particular level of genetic disaster could also explain it. Any thoughts? Steve On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... Where? References? The last I looked, all they had in addition to their long-lived groups were uncontrolled control groups, and no groups bred only from young flies. Michael rose's UCI lab has evolved flies specifically for short lifespan, but the results may not be published yet... *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in a panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI... Having some interest, expertise, and experience in both areas, I find it hard to imagine much interplay at all. The present challenge is wrapped up in a lack of basic information, resulting from insufficient funds to do the needed experiments. Extrapolations have already gone WAY beyond the data, and new methods to push extrapolations even further wouldn't be worth nearly as much as just a little more hard data. Just look at Aubrey's long list of aging mechanisms. We don't now even know which predominate, or which cause others. Further, there are new candidates arising every year, e.g. Burzynski's theory that most aging is secondary to methylation of DNA receptor sites, or my theory that Aubrey's entire list could be explained by people dropping their body temperatures later in life. There are LOTS of other theories, and without experimental results, there is absolutely no way, AI or not, to sort the wheat from the chaff. Note that one of the front runners, the cosmic ray theory, could easily be tested by simply raising some mice in deep tunnels. This is high-school level stuff, yet with NO significant funding for aging research, it remains undone. Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included. The best that an AI could seemingly do is to pronounce Fund and facilitate basic aging research and then suspend execution pending an interrupt indicating that the needed experiments have been done. Could you provide some hint as to where you are going with this? Steve --- 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
Way too pessimistic in my opinion. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: 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-expresses-and-detects-emotions.html *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/| Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of course. I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to analyze the genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message is about the virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms... -- Ben On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Ben, On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in a panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI... Having some interest, expertise, and experience in both areas, I find it hard to imagine much interplay at all. The present challenge is wrapped up in a lack of basic information, resulting from insufficient funds to do the needed experiments. Extrapolations have already gone WAY beyond the data, and new methods to push extrapolations even further wouldn't be worth nearly as much as just a little more hard data. Just look at Aubrey's long list of aging mechanisms. We don't now even know which predominate, or which cause others. Further, there are new candidates arising every year, e.g. Burzynski's theory that most aging is secondary to methylation of DNA receptor sites, or my theory that Aubrey's entire list could be explained by people dropping their body temperatures later in life. There are LOTS of other theories, and without experimental results, there is absolutely no way, AI or not, to sort the wheat from the chaff. Note that one of the front runners, the cosmic ray theory, could easily be tested by simply raising some mice in deep tunnels. This is high-school level stuff, yet with NO significant funding for aging research, it remains undone. Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included. The best that an AI could seemingly do is to pronounce Fund and facilitate basic aging research and then suspend execution pending an interrupt indicating that the needed experiments have been done. Could you provide some hint as to where you are going with this? Steve *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- 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 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. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Steve, Capable and effective AI systems would be very helpful at every step of the research process. Basic research is a major area I think that AGI will be applied to. In fact, that's exactly where I plan to apply it first. Dave On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Steve Richfield steve.richfi...@gmail.comwrote: Ben, On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in a panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI... Having some interest, expertise, and experience in both areas, I find it hard to imagine much interplay at all. The present challenge is wrapped up in a lack of basic information, resulting from insufficient funds to do the needed experiments. Extrapolations have already gone WAY beyond the data, and new methods to push extrapolations even further wouldn't be worth nearly as much as just a little more hard data. Just look at Aubrey's long list of aging mechanisms. We don't now even know which predominate, or which cause others. Further, there are new candidates arising every year, e.g. Burzynski's theory that most aging is secondary to methylation of DNA receptor sites, or my theory that Aubrey's entire list could be explained by people dropping their body temperatures later in life. There are LOTS of other theories, and without experimental results, there is absolutely no way, AI or not, to sort the wheat from the chaff. Note that one of the front runners, the cosmic ray theory, could easily be tested by simply raising some mice in deep tunnels. This is high-school level stuff, yet with NO significant funding for aging research, it remains undone. Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included. The best that an AI could seemingly do is to pronounce Fund and facilitate basic aging research and then suspend execution pending an interrupt indicating that the needed experiments have been done. Could you provide some hint as to where you are going with this? Steve *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
[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 the largest third, and here is the smallest . . . Sound familiar? Have you ever wondered why students often understand mathematics in a very rudimentary and prototypical way, why even rich and exciting hands-on types of active learning do not always result in real learning of new concepts? From the psycho-educational perspective, these are the critical questions. In other words, epistemology is valuable to the extent that it helps us find ways to enable students who come with preconceived and misconceived ideas to understand a framework of scientific and mathematical concepts. Constructivism: A New Perspective At the dawn of behaviorism, constructivism became the most dominant epistemology in education. The purest forms of this philosophy profess that knowledge is not passively received either through the senses or by way of communication, just as meaning is not explicitly out there for grabs. Rather, constructivists generally agree that knowledge is actively built up by a cognizing human who needs to adapt to what is fit and viable (von Glasersfeld, 1995). Thus, there is no dispute among constructivists over the premise that one's knowledge is in a constant state of flux because humans are subject to an ever-changing reality (Jaworski, 1994, p. 16). Although constructivists generally regard understanding as the outcome of an active process, constructivists still argue over the nature of the process of knowing. Is knowing simply a matter of recall? Does learning new concepts reflect additive or structural cognitive changes? Is the process of knowing concepts built from the bottom up, or can it be a top-down process? How does new conceptual knowledge depend on experience? How does conceptual knowledge relate to procedural knowledge? And, can teachers mediate conceptual development? | Concept-Rich Mathematics Instruction Is Learning New Concepts Simply a Mechanism of Memorization and Recall? Science and mathematics educators have become increasingly aware that our understanding of conceptual change is at least as important as the analysis of the concepts themselves. In fact, a plethora of research has established that concepts are mental structures of intellectual relationships, not simply a subject matter. The research indicates that the mental structures of intellectual relationships that make up mental concepts organize human experiences and human memory (Bartsch, 1998). Therefore, conceptual changes represent structural cognitive changes, not simply additive changes. Based on the research in cognitive psychology, the attention of research in education has been shifting from the content (e.g., mathematical concepts) to the mental predicates, language, and preconcepts. Despite the research, many teachers continue to approach new concepts as if they were simply addons to their students' existing knowledge-a subject of memorization and recall. This practice may well be one of the causes of misconceptions in mathematics. Structural Cognitive Change The notion of structural cognitive change, or schematic change, was first introduced in the field of psychology (by Bartlett, who studied memory in the 1930s). It became one of the basic tenets of constructivism. Researchers in mathematics education picked up on this term and have been leaning heavily on it since the 1960s, following Skemp (1962), Minsky (1975), and Davis (1984). The generally accepted idea among researchers in the field, as stated by Skemp (1986, p. 43), is that in mathematics, to understand something is to assimilate it into an appropriate schema. A structural cognitive change is not merely an appendage. It involves the whole network of interrelated operational and conceptual schemata. Structural changes are pervasive, central, and permanent. The first characteristic of structural change refers to its pervasive nature. That is, new experiences do not have a limited effect, but cause the entire cognitive structure to rearrange itself. Vygotsky (1986, p. 167) argued, It was shown and proved experimentally that mental development does not coincide with the development of separate psychological functions, but rather depends on changing relations between them. The development of each function, in turn, depends upon the progress in the development of the interfunctional system. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:11 PM To: agi Subject: [agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] how would these diverse
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Ben, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of course. I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to analyze the genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message is about the virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms... I should dredge up and forward past threads with them. There are some flaws in their chain of reasoning, so that it won't be all that simple to sort the few relevant from the many irrelevant mutations. There is both a huge amount of noise, and irrelevant adaptations to their environment and their treatment. Even when the relevant mutations are eventually identified, it isn't clear how that will map to usable therapies for the existing population. Perhaps you remember the old Star Trek episode about the long-lived population that was still locked in a war after hundreds of years? The episode devolved into a dispute over the potential value of this discovery - was there something valuable in the environment, or did they just evolve to live longer? Here, the long-lived population isn't even human. Further, most of the things that kill us operate WAY too slowly to affect fruit flies, though there are some interesting dual-affecting problems. Unfortunately, it isn't as practical to autopsy fruit flies as it is to autopsy people to see what killed them. As I have posted in the past, what we have here in the present human population is about the equivalent of a fruit fly population that was bred for the shortest possible lifespan. Our social practices could hardly do worse. Our present challenge is to get to where fruit flies were before Rose first bred them for long life. I strongly suspect that we have some early-killer mutations, e.g. to people off as quickly as possible after they pass child-bearing age, which itself is probably being shortened through our bizarre social habits of mating like-aged people. Genescient's approach holds no promise of identifying THOSE genes, and identifying the other genes won't help at all until those killer genes are first silenced. In short, there are some really serious challenges to Genescient's approach. I expect success for several other quarters long before Genescient bears real-world usable fruit. I suspect that these challenges, along with the ubiquitous shortage of funding will keep Genescient out of producing real-world usable results pretty much forever. Future AGI output: Fund aging research. Update on studying more of Burzynski's papers: His is not a cancer cure at all. What he is doing is removing gene-silencing methylization from the DNA, and letting nature take its course, e.g. having their immune systems kill the cancer via aptosis. In short, it is a real-world anti-aging approach that has snuck in under the radar. OF COURSE any real-world working anti-aging approach would kill cancer! How good is his present product? Who knows? It sure looks to me like this is a valid approach, and I suspect that any bugs will get worked out in time. WATCH THIS. This looks to me like it will work in the real-world long before any other of the present popular approaches stand a chance of working. After all, it sure seems to be working on some people with really extreme gene silencing - called cancer. Steve --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
On 10 August 2010 16:44, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of course. I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to analyze the genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message is about the virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms... Probably if I was going to apply AI in a medical context I'd prioritize those conditions which are both common and either fatal or have a severe impact on quality of life. Also worthwhile would be using AI to try to discover drugs which have an equivalent effect to existing known ones but can be manufactured at a significantly lower cost, such that they are brought within the means of a larger fraction of the population. Investigating aging is perfectly legitimate, but if you're trying to maximize your personal utility I'd regard it as a low priority compared to other more urgent medical issues which cause premature deaths. Also in the endeavor to extend life we need not focus entirely upon medical aspects. The organizational problems of delivering known medications on a large scale is also a problem which AI could perhaps be used to optimize. The way in which things like this are currently organized seems to be based upon some combination of tradition and intuitive hunches, so there may be low hanging fruit to be obtained here. For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you vaccinate first? If you have access to a social graph (from Facebook, or wherever) it's probably possible to calculate an optimal strategy. --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
The think the biggest thing to remember here is that general AI could be applied to many different problems in parallel by many different people. They would help with many aspects of the problem solving process, not just a single one and certainly not just applied to a single experiment/study. I'm confident that Ben is aware of this On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 August 2010 16:44, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of course. I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to analyze the genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message is about the virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms... Probably if I was going to apply AI in a medical context I'd prioritize those conditions which are both common and either fatal or have a severe impact on quality of life. Also worthwhile would be using AI to try to discover drugs which have an equivalent effect to existing known ones but can be manufactured at a significantly lower cost, such that they are brought within the means of a larger fraction of the population. Investigating aging is perfectly legitimate, but if you're trying to maximize your personal utility I'd regard it as a low priority compared to other more urgent medical issues which cause premature deaths. Also in the endeavor to extend life we need not focus entirely upon medical aspects. The organizational problems of delivering known medications on a large scale is also a problem which AI could perhaps be used to optimize. The way in which things like this are currently organized seems to be based upon some combination of tradition and intuitive hunches, so there may be low hanging fruit to be obtained here. For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you vaccinate first? If you have access to a social graph (from Facebook, or wherever) it's probably possible to calculate an optimal strategy. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote: Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of used mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included. You might be inerested in this- I've been putting together an adopt-a-lab-rat program that is actually an adoption program for lab mice. In some cases mice that are used as a control group in experiments are then discarded at the end of the program because, honestly, their lifetime is over more or less, so the idea is that some people might be interested in adopting these mice. Of course, you can also just pony up the $15 and get one from Jackson Labs. I haven't fully launced adopt-a-lab-rat yet because I am still trying to figure out how to avoid ending up in a situation where I have hundreds of rats and rodents running around my apartment and I get the short end of the stick (oops). - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
On 10 August 2010 18:43, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: here. For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you vaccinate first? That should have been who rather than why :-) Just thinking a little further, in hand waving mode, If something like the common cold were added as a status within social networks, and everyone was on the network it might even be possible to eliminate this disease simply by getting people to avoid those who are known to have it for a certain period of time - a sort of internet enabled smart avoidance strategy. This wouldn't be a cure, but it could severely hamper the disease transmission mechanism, perhaps even to the extent of driving it to extinction. --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
I should dredge up and forward past threads with them. There are some flaws in their chain of reasoning, so that it won't be all that simple to sort the few relevant from the many irrelevant mutations. There is both a huge amount of noise, and irrelevant adaptations to their environment and their treatment. They have evolved many different populations in parallel, using the same fitness criterion. This provides powerful noise filtering Even when the relevant mutations are eventually identified, it isn't clear how that will map to usable therapies for the existing population. yes, that's a complex matter Further, most of the things that kill us operate WAY too slowly to affect fruit flies, though there are some interesting dual-affecting problems. Fruit flies get all the major ailments that kill people frequently, except cancer. heart disease, neurodegenerative disease, respiratory problems, immune problems, etc. As I have posted in the past, what we have here in the present human population is about the equivalent of a fruit fly population that was bred for the shortest possible lifespan. Certainly not. We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of their genetics refutes your claim ;p ... ben g --- 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] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?
Bob, their are serious issues with such a suggestion. The biggest issue, is that there is a good chance it wouldn't work because diseases, including the common cold, have incubation times. So, you may not have any symptoms at all, yet you can pass it on to other people. And even if we did know who was sick, are you really going to stay home for 2 weeks every time you get sick? If I were an employer, I would rather have you come to work when you feel up to it. Another point I've given to germaphobes is that let's say you are successful at avoiding as many possible germs as possible and avoid getting sick as much as possible. That means that you are likely not immune to some common colds and such that you should be. So, when you are old and less capable, your immune system will not be able to fight off the infection and you will die an early death. Dave On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 August 2010 18:43, Bob Mottram fuzz...@gmail.com wrote: here. For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you vaccinate first? That should have been who rather than why :-) Just thinking a little further, in hand waving mode, If something like the common cold were added as a status within social networks, and everyone was on the network it might even be possible to eliminate this disease simply by getting people to avoid those who are known to have it for a certain period of time - a sort of internet enabled smart avoidance strategy. This wouldn't be a cure, but it could severely hamper the disease transmission mechanism, perhaps even to the extent of driving it to extinction. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=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
What about DESTIN? Jim has talked about video. Could DESTIN be generalized to 3 dimensions, or even n dimensions? - Ian Parker On 9 August 2010 07:16, 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 davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM *To:* agi 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 davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM *To:* agi 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
Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
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 davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM *To:* agi 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 davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM *To:* agi 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). From: John G. Rose Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:16 AM To: agi Subject: 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi 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
Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Dave, You offer nothing to even attend to. The questions completely unanswered by you are: 1. what basic visual units of analysis have you arrived at? (you say there are such things - you must have arrived at something, no?) - zero answer 2.what kind of physical/visual *pattern* informs our concept of chair? - zero answer. A non-physical pattern pace you is a non-existent entity/figment of your mind, (just as the pattern of divine grace is), - and yet another non-answer. You're supposed to be doing visual AGI - put up something visual in answer to the questions, or, I suggest, keep quiet. From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: agi Subject: Re: RE: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi 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 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi 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
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind of object is that kind of object. I believe that the problem must be a problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program. A young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs. In a few cases, after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood) he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or not. And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair). 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. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote: 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. 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
You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). --- 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
PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.? From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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
I already stated these. read previous emails. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.? *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Examples of nonphysical patterns? From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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
No you didn't. You're being evasive through and through. You haven't answered the questions put to you in any shape or form other than nonphysical - and never will. Nor do you have any answer. Finis. From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:51 PM To: agi 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: PS Examples of nonphysical patterns AND how they are applicable to visual AGI.? From: David Jones Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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
Mike, Quoting a previous email: QUOTE In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. END QUOTE Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out there camping, you can sit on it. I could say sit on that fridge couch over there. The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to call it a couch. But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it's a fridge. So, when the object has a more common effective use, as I stated above, it is usually referred to by that use. If something is most likely used for sitting by a single person, then it is a chair. If its most common best use is something else, like cooling food, you would call it a fridge. So, maybe the pattern would be, if it has some features like a chair, like possible arm rests, a soft bottom, cushions, legs, a back rest, etc. and you can't see it being used as anything else, then maybe it's a chair. If someone sits on it, it certainly is a chair, 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 chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes, sizes and structures is just wrong. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Examples of nonphysical patterns? *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. it must be 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 tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of fotos to Dave. (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there are no such things as non-physical patterns). *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 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? I do not reckon that it will work for an infant or anyone (or anything) who (or that) has only seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms. I haven't looked at your photos, but I did indicate that learning has to be able to advance with new kinds of objects of a kind. My previous comment specifically dealt with the problem of learning to recognize radically different instances of the kind. There was once a time when it was thought that domain-specific AI, using general methods of reasoning would be more feasible than general AI. This optimism was not borne out by experiment. The question is why not? I believe that domain specific AI needs to rely on so much general knowledge (AGI) as a base, that until a certain level of success in AGI is achieved, narrower domain specific AI will be limited to calculation-based reasoning and the like (as in closed taxonomic AI or simple neural networks). A similar situation occurred in space travel. At the dawn of the space age some people intuitively thought that traveling to the moon would be 2000 times more difficult than sending a space vehicle up a 100 miles (since it was 2000 times further away) so if it took 10 years to get to the pont where they could get a space capsule up 100 miles, it would take 2 years to reach the moon. It didn't work that way, because as the leading experts realized, getting away from earth's gravity results in a significant and geometric decrease in the force needed to continue. Because this fact was not intuitive to the naive critic it wasn't completely grasped by many people until the first space vehicle escaped earth orbit a few years after the first space shots. I think a similar situation probably is at the center of the feasibility of basic AGI. As more and more examples are learned, the complications in storing and accessing that information in a wise and intelligent manner become more and more elusive. But, for example, if domain specific information is dependent on a certain level of general knowledge, then you won't see domain specific AI really take off until that level of AGI becomes feasible. Why would this relationship occur? Because each time you double *all* knowledge (as is implied by a doubling of general knowledge) you have a progressively more complicated load on the computer. So to double that general knowledge twice, you would have to create an AGI program that was capable of dealing with four times as much complexity. To double that general knowledge again, you would have to create an AGI program that would have to deal with 8 times the complexity as your first prototype. Once you get your AGI program to work at a certain level of complexity, then your domain-specific AI program might start to take off and you would see the kind of dazzling results which would make the critics more wary of expressing their skepticism. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 set of particular kinds of chairs, cope with a radically new kind of chair? Just saying - well let's analyse the chairs we have - is not an answer. You can take it for granted that the new chair will have some feature[s]/form that constitutes a radical departure from existing ones. (as is amply illustrated by my set of fotos). And yet your - an AGI - mind can normally adapt and recognize the new object as a chair. ). *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 12:50 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 The mind cannot determine whether or not -every- instance of a kind of object is that kind of object. I believe that the problem must be a problem of complexity and it is just that the mind is much better at dealing with complicated systems of possibilities than any computer program. A young child first learns that certain objects are called chairs, and that the furniture objects that he sits on are mostly chairs. In a few cases, after seeing an odd object that is used as a chair for the first time (like seeing an odd outdoor chair that is fashioned from twisted pieces of wood) he might not know that it is a chair, or upon reflection wonder if it is or not. And think of odd furniture that appears and comes into fashion for a while and then disappears (like the bean bag chair). The question for me is not what the smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range and diversity of kinds
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Hi David, I read the essay I think it summarizes well some of the key issues involving the bridge between perception and cognition, and the hierarchical decomposition of natural concepts I find the ideas very harmonious with those of Jeff Hawkins, Itamar Arel, and other researchers focused on hierarchical deep learning approaches to vision with longer-term AGI ambitions I'm not sure there are any dramatic new ideas in the essay. Do you think there are? My own view is that these ideas are basically right, but handle only a modest percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like AGI I.e. 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... -- Ben G On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- 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 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. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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
Mike, The concept of chair is not an isolated concept by itself. It is also not recognized using a single simple schema. People have seen many chair instances in their lives and are able to learn their features and affordances. We are able to compare their features and structures. So, when we see another chair, we are not just comparing a single constructed schema. We compare the features to features we've seen before, we analyze the uses of the structures and how similar they are to other objects we've seen before. What might it be used for? Put just about anything with a concave shape on the floor with 3 or four legs and you can call it a chair. LOL. You see, there are physical features and patterns that are do make it possible to consider that maybe a new object might be a chair, but it is by no means some schema set in stone. We just fine something that works well. And I've given you plenty of ways to think about it that would suggest ways of solving the problem that would work well. So, to say that I must create this perfect schema to prove that AGI is possible is dumb and unreasonable. I can get you a close description of a schema that would recognize it. But I certainly cannot write the program out for you. It involves knowledge, which involves lots of supporting algorithms to construct and use. It seems that no matter how much detail I give you, you can't read between the lines. So, give it a rest mike. It is clearly possible to do. How exactly it is done is yet to be determined. This is why I say in my paper it is important to start with raw data, because it is unrealistic and unrepresentative to construct solutions that don't use knowledge and try to solve the problem without the right knowledge. Human beings do not recognize chairs in a vacuum. A lot of knowledge and experience goes into it. Some of the things on your google example images would not be recognized as chairs to people if given out of context. So, to force AI to recognize them all with 100% accuracy is unreasonable. That's why I don't like arguing with you. You are unreasonable and will never admit that you're wrong. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: You're somewhat confused here (and now that you're answering, one can see why make progress). The use of or to use a chair, involves a physical class of forms - bottoms or other objects have to make physical contact with - sit on - the chair/fridge etc. Everything we're talking about is physical and can only be conceived of physically and, relative to our discussion, visually. And you clearly don't see that you have still not identified any kind of physical schema/ framework for either chair or sitting or anything else. And that is what a visual AGI must do - use some kind of physical schema - in order to recognize an object as a chair or the action of an object as sitting. [Note I use schema/framework rather than pattern - the former are more general terms, the latter much more specific ( mathematical). I suspect that you may be using pattern here confusedly in the popular/nonmathematical sense wh. is more akin to schema. But you and all other AGI-ers actually deal computationally in math. patterns, and it is that sense that I am addressing]. When you claim that there is a pattern to chair[s] you are making a mathematical claim, - and it is completely indefensible. (Show me otherwise, John). And that is perhaps the most central issue of AGI. So it is worth consideration. You also seem to be confused about my position - wh. BTW as I've pointed out is backed by at least one significant AGI-er. I am NOT suggesting conceptualisation/object recognition cannot be done - just not done by your and others' 100%-record-of-failure mathematical methods. (I'm almost tempted to say a blind idiot could see that [image: Smile emoticon] ).** I'm suggesting that the brain uses fluid schemas to recognize objects (and concepts) - fluidly stretchable (and editable) schemas - when we say by no stretch of the imagination can that be recognized/classify as a chair. - we are unconsciously indicating the underlying process of object recognition - one of stretching image schemas to match incoming objects. If you want an inspirational image of a fluid schema, think strings - as in string theory - those oscillating strings which are supposed to be capable of making any shape of particle or object. (I'm too ignorant to know how precisely the brain's image schemas and nature's theoretical string schemas can be aligned - comments welcome - but there seems to be a loose aptness and even beauty in the comparison. It would be rather wonderful if mind and matter are conceived/work on similar principles). If you want both evidence and a concrete example of how fluid and stretchable the brain's schemas can be - think of what the schema must be like for one or 1. Well, something like a line obviously
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Thanks Ben, I think the biggest difference with the way I approach it is to be deliberate in how the system solves specific kinds of problems. I haven't gone into that in detail yet though. For example, Itamar seems to want to give the AI the basic building blocks that make up spaciotemporal dependencies as a sort of bag of features and just let a neural-net-like structure find the patterns. If that is not accurate, please correct me. I am very skeptical of such approaches because there is no guarantee at all that the system will properly represent the relationships and structure of the data. It seems just hopeful to me that such a system would get it right out of the vast number of possible results it could accidental arrive at. The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to learn from perceptual data. I think a more deliberate approach would be more effective because we can understand why it does what it does, how it does it, and why its not working if it doesn't work. With such deliberate approaches, it is much more clear how to proceed and to reuse knowledge in many complementary ways. This is what I meant by emergence. I propose a more deliberate approach that knows exactly why problems can be solved a certain way and how the system is likely to solve them. I'm suggesting to represent the spaciotemporal relationships deliberately and explicitly. Then we can construct general algorithms to solve problems explicitly, yet generally. Regarding computer vision not being that important... Don't you think that because knowledge is so essential and manual input is inneffective, perception-based acquisition of knowledge is a very serious barrier to AGI? It seems to me that the solutions to AGI problems being constructed are not using knowledge gained from simulated perception effectively. OpenCog's natural language processing for example, seems to use very very little knowledge that would be gathered from visual perception. As far as I remember, it mostly uses things that are learned from other sources. To me, it doesn't make sense to spend so much time debugging and developing such solutions, when a better and more general approach to language understanding would use a lot of knowledge. Those are the sorts of things I feel are new to this approach. Thanks Again, Dave PS: I'm planning to go to the Singularity Summit :) Last minute. Hope to see you there. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi David, I read the essay I think it summarizes well some of the key issues involving the bridge between perception and cognition, and the hierarchical decomposition of natural concepts I find the ideas very harmonious with those of Jeff Hawkins, Itamar Arel, and other researchers focused on hierarchical deep learning approaches to vision with longer-term AGI ambitions I'm not sure there are any dramatic new ideas in the essay. Do you think there are? My own view is that these ideas are basically right, but handle only a modest percentage of what's needed to make a human-level, vaguely human-like AGI I.e. 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... -- Ben G On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Guys, I've been working on writing out my approach to create general AI to share and debate it with others in the field. I've attached my second draft of it in PDF format, if you guys are at all interested. It's still a work in progress and hasn't been fully edited. Please feel free to comment, positively or negatively, if you have a chance to read any of it. I'll be adding to and editing it over the next few days. I'll try to reply more professionally than I have been lately :) Sorry :S Cheers, Dave *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- 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 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. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
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 prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? --- 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
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 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 prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not available to humans) You misunderstood my statement. I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- 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 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. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- 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
The human visual system doesn't evolve like that on the fly. This can be proven by the fact that we all see the same visual illusions. We all exhibit the same visual limitations in the same way. There is much evidence that the system doesn't evolve accidentally. It has a limited set of rules it uses to learn from perceptual data. That is not a proof, of course. It could be that given a general architecture, and inputs with certain statistical properties, the same internal structures inevitably self-organize I think a more deliberate approach would be more effective because we can understand why it does what it does, how it does it, and why its not working if it doesn't work. With such deliberate approaches, it is much more clear how to proceed and to reuse knowledge in many complementary ways. This is what I meant by emergence. I understand the general concept. I am reminded a bit of Poggio's hierarchical visual cortex simulations -- which do attempt to emulate the human brain's specific processing, on a neuronal cluster and inter-cluster connectivity level However, Poggio hasn't yet solved the problem of making this kind of deliberately-engineered hierarchical vision network incorporate cognition== perception feedback. At this stage it seems basically a feedforward system. So I'm curious -- what are the specific pattern-recognition modules that you will put into your system, and how will you arrange them hierarchically? -- how will you handle feedback connections (top-down) among the modules? thx ben --- 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
Ben:I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Which is? From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:57 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk 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 independent entity? All its info. is going to have to be entered into it in a specially prepared form - and it's still going to be massively and continuously dependent on human programmers? I envisage my AGI as an independent entity, ingesting information from the world in a similar manner to how humans do (as well as through additional senses not available to humans) You misunderstood my statement. I think that vision and the vision-cognition bridge are important for AGI, but I think they're only a moderate portion of the problem, and not the hardest part... Humans and real AGI's receive virtually all their info. - certainly all their internet info - through heavily visual processing (with obvious exceptions like sound). You can't do maths and logic if you can't see them, and they have visual forms - equations and logic have visual form and use visual ideogrammatic as well as visual numerical signs. Just wh. intelligent problemsolving operations is your AGI going to do, that do NOT involve visual processing OR - the alternative - massive human assistance to substitute for that processing? agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- 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 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. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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
