Directions for AGI research, was Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Joshua Fox wrote: What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." It seems to me the reason for this lack of activity is a lack of credible lines of research, other than continuing existing narrow AI and cognitive science work, hopefully with extra efforts to encourage cross-pollination. A list of ideas for what academia should be doing, other than giving people million dollar grants for programming systems they cannot make a good case will do anything interesting might help, I list a few off the top of my head below, feel free to revise my list: tractable subcases of bayesian/KC/decision theory methods, as pursued by Marcus Hutter Reflectivity in bayesian/KC/decision theory methods, as pursued by Eliezer Yudkowsky Dynamics of concepts, Douglas Hofstadter Brain simulation, blue brain project Common sense reasoning AI intelligence tests, Shane Legg - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being > done? Perhaps it's just a matter of faith -- some believe in it, and some don't ;-) -- Christophe - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Eliezer,Shane, what would you do if you had your headway? Say, you won the lottery tomorrow (ignoring the fact that no rational person would buy aticket). Not just "AGI" - what specifically would you sit down and doall day?I've got a list of things I'd like to be working on. For example, I'd like to try to build a universal test of machine intelligence, I've also got ideas inthe area of genetic algorithms, neural network architectures, and somemore theoretical things related to complexity theory and AI. I also want to spend more time learning neuroscience. I think my best shot at buildingan AGI will involve bringing ideas from many of these areas together. Indeed not. It takes your first five years simply to figure out whichway is up. But Shane, if you restrict yourself to results you canregularly publish, you couldn't work on what you really wanted to do,even if you had a million dollars. If I had a million dollars I wouldn't care so much about my "career"as I wouldn't be dependent on the academic system to pay my bills.As such I'd only publish once, or perhaps twice, a year and would spend more time on areas of research that were more likely to failor would require large time investments before seeing results.Shane This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Thanks, all, for those insightful answers. In combination with the published discussion of the topic, this thread is enlightening. Still, to push the point, I am fantasizing a conversation with a Hypothetical Open-Minded World-Renowned Eloquent Cognitive Scientist (Howecs). Surely there must be a few of these out there. Daniel Dennett comes to mind, though I hesitate to focus on any one person's ideas. I am setting aside the herd-followers, the nine-to-fivers, and the outliers for the purposes of this discussion.Using Pei's points as a convenient summary, Professor Howecs would relate as follows to common objections. 1. "AGI is impossible" & 2. "There is no such a thing as general intelligence"-- Howecs can recognize that AGI is probably possible in principle -- and if it is impossible, that unsuccessful attempts will bring insights on fundamental philosophical questions which scholars have been working on for centuries. 3. "General-purpose systems are not as good as special-purpose ones" -- Howecs would recognize that performance and efficiency are not needed for philosophical questions, which is what he is professionally most interested in. 4. "AGI is already included in the current AI" ---Howecs would recognize that if AI subfield X is the secret to AGI, then X is just the correct path to take to AGI, and X research is the equivalent of AGI research. 5. "It is too early to work on AGI" --- Howecs is either a philosophy professor or so advanced in his field that his work impinges on philosophy, so working on pie-in-the-sky topics does not bother him at all. 6. "AGI is nothing but hype" --- Howecs knows to separate hype from reality and knows that past over-hyped projects do not obviate the value of a scientific field. Carl Sagan dealt heavily in SETI, even though this has attracted lots of sci-fi, lots of weirdos, and lots of failure -- and surely Sagan would qualify as a Howecs in his field. 7. "AGI research is not fruitful --- it is hard to get result, support, reward, ..." -- Howecs can muster funding for himself and his students at will, and is fearless of public opinion. He can choose sub-topics which will give interim results; he, as an opinion-leader, will make the world respect these. (Note that in academia, a well-argued paper in itself can be considered a "result." Implementable technologies or rigorous proofs are not always needed, as long as the relevant academic community is interested in the ideas.) 8. "AGI is dangerous" --- Think of how the greatest of nuclear physicists and microbiologists reacted to potentially dangerous technologies. Howecs, first, is too scientifically curious to let the fear drive him away; and second, he knows the importance of mitigating the dangers. So, where are all the Howecses speaking up for AGI research?Joshua This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Shane Legg wrote: Funding is certainly a problem. I'd like to work on my own AGI ideas after my PhD is over next year... but can I get money to do that? Probably not. So as a compromise I'll have to work on something else in AI during the day, and spend my weekends doing the stuff I'd really like to be doing. Currently I code my AI at nights and weekends. Shane, what would you do if you had your headway? Say, you won the lottery tomorrow (ignoring the fact that no rational person would buy a ticket). Not just "AGI" - what specifically would you sit down and do all day? If there's somewhere online that already answers this or a previous AGI message I should read, just point. Pressure to publish is also a problem. I need results on a regular basis that I can publish otherwise my career is over. AGI is not really short term results friendly. Indeed not. It takes your first five years simply to figure out which way is up. But Shane, if you restrict yourself to results you can regularly publish, you couldn't work on what you really wanted to do, even if you had a million dollars. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
I think that's an insightful summary which really matches very well my experience of people doing academic research on AI. There are really exceptionally few of the "hard core" people who are just relentlessly persuing it year after year. Many people doing computer science courses take an interest for a year or two, and then decide its too hard and go on to do more sensible things such as database programming instead, which is more likely to pay the bills and give you a respectable career. - Bob On 13/09/06, Shane Legg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a question that I've thought about from time to time. The conclusionI've come to is that there isn't really one or two reasons, there are many.Surprisingly, most people in academic AI aren't really all that into AI. It's a job. It's more interesting than doing database programming ina bank, but at the end of the day it's just a job. They're not out tochange the world or do anything amazing, it's hard enough just trying to get a paper into conference X or Y. It's true that they are skepticalabout whether AI will make large progress towards human levelintelligence in their life times, however I think the more important point is that they simply don't even think about this question. They're just not interested. I'd say that this is about 19 out of every 20 people in academicAI. Of course there are thousands of people working in academic AIaround the world, so 1 out of 19 is still a sizable number of people in total. This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
This is a question that I've thought about from time to time. The conclusionI've come to is that there isn't really one or two reasons, there are many.Surprisingly, most people in academic AI aren't really all that into AI. It's a job. It's more interesting than doing database programming ina bank, but at the end of the day it's just a job. They're not out tochange the world or do anything amazing, it's hard enough just trying to get a paper into conference X or Y. It's true that they are skepticalabout whether AI will make large progress towards human levelintelligence in their life times, however I think the more important pointis that they simply don't even think about this question. They're just not interested. I'd say that this is about 19 out of every 20 people in academicAI. Of course there are thousands of people working in academic AIaround the world, so 1 out of 19 is still a sizable number of people in total. Funding is certainly a problem. I'd like to work on my own AGI ideasafter my PhD is over next year... but can I get money to do that? Probablynot. So as a compromise I'll have to work on something else in AI during the day, and spend my weekends doing the stuff I'd really like to be doing.Currently I code my AI at nights and weekends.Pressure to publish is also a problem. I need results on a regular basisthat I can publish otherwise my career is over. AGI is not really short term results friendly.Another thing is visibility. Of the academic people I know who are tryingto build a general artificial intelligence (although probably not saying quitethat in their papers), I would be surprised if any of them were known to anybody on this list. These a non-famous young researchers, and becausethey can't publish papers saying that they want build a thinking machine,you'd only know this if you were to meet them in person. One thing that people who are not involved in academic AI often don'tappreciate is just how fractured the field is. I've seen plenty of exampleswhere there are two sub-fields that are doing almost the same thing but which are using different words for things, go to different conferences,and cite different sets of people. I bring this up because I sometimesget the feeling that some people think that "academic AI" is some sort of definable group. In reality, most academics lack of knowledge aboutAGI is no different to their lack of knowledge of many other areas of AI.In other words, they aren't ignoring AGI any more than they are ignoring twenty other areas in the field.Shane This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
AGI ideas that are well developed can be quite concrete, as well as having payoffs in the near future. Our project's business plan aims to do both. Peter -Original Message- From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Additional factor: AGI ideas are often vague or analogical. Even the ideas with mathematically describable internals are often vague in the explanation of what they are supposed to do, or why they are supposed to be "intelligent". It would be harder to cooperate on a project like that, than on developing a faster sorting algorithm. Fuzzy beliefs are harder to communicate; communication is the essence of cooperation. -Original Message- From: Neil H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, one might also argue that they simply didn't venture far enough to see the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel." I suppose one of the downsides about AGI is that, unlike more focused AI research (vision, NLP, etc), there really aren't any intermediate payoffs between now and the "holy grail." - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
I recall a recruiter from a CS PhD program (maybe UW?) citing that AI students take one year longer on average to complete their PhD because they spend the first year convinced that they've struck upon an idea which is going to be the solution to general AI. I agree with this assessment -- I spent most of last year in such a phase. I'd argue that this is the reason for the lack of interest -- they've already ventured down that road and have found it to be fruitless. Of course, one might also argue that they simply didn't venture far enough to see the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel." I suppose one of the downsides about AGI is that, unlike more focused AI research (vision, NLP, etc), there really aren't any intermediate payoffs between now and the "holy grail." On 9/13/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am surprised that more members of the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't believe that , for example, almost all leading computer-science/cognitive-science professors are herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. The leading universities do have their share of creative, free-thinking, inquisitive people, and the same goes for other parts of the "establishment". To clarify what I am looking for, I should describe a recent conversation. I spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who has a PhD from, and does research in, a top university. The research is in exactly the sort of technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him about Kurzweil's trends on the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning technologies. He did not agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained why. Likewise, I'm looking for input from a open-minded, intelligent, computer/cognitive scientist (who does not strongly support AGI research) on the above question. I don't know where to find them, so perhaps someone on this list could role-play one. What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." Thanks, Joshua This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Pei Wang wrote: Why in other fields of AI, or CS in general, do many people work on other people's ideas? I guess the AGI ideas are still not convincing and attractive enough to other people. Additional factor: AGI ideas are often vague or analogical. Even the ideas with mathematically describable internals are often vague in the explanation of what they are supposed to do, or why they are supposed to be "intelligent". It would be harder to cooperate on a project like that, than on developing a faster sorting algorithm. Fuzzy beliefs are harder to communicate; communication is the essence of cooperation. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Why in other fields of AI, or CS in general, do many people work on other people's ideas? I guess the AGI ideas are still not convincing and attractive enough to other people. Pei On 9/13/06, Andrew Babian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS. http://adaptiveai.com/company/opportunities.htm This also reminds me of something, and I know it's true of myself, and I think it might be generally true. It seems like people tend to have their own ideas of what they want to be done, and they are just not very interested in working on someone else's idea or concept. I know that's why I am not working on Stan's project. It could also be why I haven't been aggressive enough to really go after working on one of the other projects that are out there, a2i2 included. It seems like there are quite a few lone AI hackers out there. And this is a specific case of something I have found: nobody likes to be told what to do--some people tolerate it more than others, but nobody likes it. andi - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
> PS. http://adaptiveai.com/company/opportunities.htm This also reminds me of something, and I know it's true of myself, and I think it might be generally true. It seems like people tend to have their own ideas of what they want to be done, and they are just not very interested in working on someone else's idea or concept. I know that's why I am not working on Stan's project. It could also be why I haven't been aggressive enough to really go after working on one of the other projects that are out there, a2i2 included. It seems like there are quite a few lone AI hackers out there. And this is a specific case of something I have found: nobody likes to be told what to do--some people tolerate it more than others, but nobody likes it. andi - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Joshua Fox wrote: I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? ... Thanks, Joshua What proportion of the work that is being done do you believe you are aware of? On what basis? My suspicion is that most people on the track of something new tend to be rather close about it. I'll agree that this probably slows down progress, but from an individual person or corporation's point of view it is quite sensible. For one thing, it minimizes the risks of humiliation. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
This is also something which has baffled me for a long time. I've been mucking around with AI and related software since I was a kid, and as the years went by it gradually dawned upon me what the real problems were which needed to be overcome if any significant progress was going to be made. One of the really important things in my opinion is just being able to see the world at a reasonably high fidelity and level of confidence, so that you can then begin to make some decisions about what to do and how to move around. There's been very little done, both in the academic and industrial arenas, on trying to produce a good all-purpose vision system which you can just bolt onto the side of some machine and have it be able to see what's in front of it. I think many people have shied away from such a task because it's traditionally regarded as difficult, and instead there have been many narrow-AI type vision systems employing an assortment of dodgy heuristics to pick out limited aspects of the visual scene. However, producing a system which just reverse engineers camera images and produces good 3D models isn't impossible. In fact, it's quite straightforward, and doesn't involve having to resort to any particularly exotic algorithms - just regular geometry and probability theory. People such as Moravec have been working on this kind of stuff for years, and it's surprising how little attention this approach has received. However, I think the good news is that soon there will be very generic vision systems of the bolt-on kind, which will work within a wide range of environments. I see this as a critical component which will facilitate the eventual realisation of AGIs capable of operating in the real world. To go back to the original question I think the answer is that if you want to be a good researcher, keep paying the bills and work your way through the ranks you should avoid difficult or unconventional subjects. Stick to stuff that's easy and don't try to rock the boat and you'll have an easier life. Also there's the peer pressure factor. If some notable professor X comes out and says that general purpose vision is a problem to which there are no solutions on the horizon, then lesser mortals are likely to assume he knows what he's talking about and avoid getting involved with a subject which is unlikely to yield results. - Bob On 13/09/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done?The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am surprised that more members of the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't believe that , for example, almost all leading computer-science/cognitive-science professors are herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. The leading universities do have their share of creative, free-thinking, inquisitive people, and the same goes for other parts of the "establishment". To clarify what I am looking for, I should describe a recent conversation. I spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who has a PhD from, and does research in, a top university. The research is in exactly the sort of technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him about Kurzweil's trends on the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning technologies. He did not agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained why. Likewise, I'm looking for input from a open-minded, intelligent, computer/cognitive scientist (who does not strongly support AGI research) on the above question. I don't know where to find them, so perhaps someone on this list could role-play one. What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." Thanks,Joshua This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Yes, that is what No. 6 is about. The situation is made worse by the "AI has been solved" claims on the web from different places. Pei On 9/13/06, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would add that previous more-or-less general AI projects have not greatly exceeded their modest expectations. So given this experience perhaps there is a tendency among potential sponsors to classify new AGI projects as crackpot schemes. -Steve --- Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good question. > > I and Ben are drafting an introductory chapter for > the AGIRI Workshop > Proceedings, and in it we want to list the major > objections to AGI > research, then reject them one by one. Now the list > includes the > following: > > 1. "AGI is impossible" --- such as the opinions from > Lucas, Dreyfus, > and Penrose > > 2. "There is no such a thing as general > intelligence" --- > psychological arguments against any "g factor", and > AI arguments > against any "general problem solver" > > 3. "General-purpose systems are not as good as > special-purpose ones" > --- in terms of performance, efficiency, etc. > > 4. "AGI is already included in the current AI" --- > "Since X plays an > important role in intelligence, studying X > contributes to the study of > intelligence in general", where X can be replaced by > reasoning, > learning, planning, perceiving, acting, etc. > > 5. "It is too early to work on AGI" --- we should > wait for more > results from individual AI sub-fields, brain > research, hardware > innovations, ... > > 6. "AGI is nothing but hype" --- no AGI claim has > got any supporting > evidence in history > > 7. "AGI research is not fruitful" --- it is hard to > get result, > support, reward, ... > > 8. "AGI is dangerous" --- Terminator, Matrix, ... > > Anything else? > > Pei > > > On 9/13/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI > research and development being > > done? > > > > The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, > and others all agree on > > this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read > Are We Spiritual Machines, > > but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is > nothing more to say on this > > question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of > sniping this thread > > immediately.) > > > > I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am > surprised that more members of > > the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't > believe that , for > > example, almost all leading > > computer-science/cognitive-science professors are > > herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. > The leading universities do > > have their share of creative, free-thinking, > inquisitive people, and the > > same goes for other parts of the "establishment". > > > > > > To clarify what I am looking for, I should > describe a recent conversation. I > > spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who > has a PhD from, and does > > research in, a top university. The research is in > exactly the sort of > > technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him > about Kurzweil's trends on > > the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning > technologies. He did not > > agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained > why. > > > > Likewise, I'm looking for input from a > open-minded, intelligent, > > computer/cognitive scientist (who does not > strongly support AGI research) on > > the above question. I don't know where to find > them, so perhaps someone on > > this list could role-play one. > > > > What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not > pursue or support AGI > > research? Even if you believe that implementation > is a long way off, surely > > academia can study, and has studied for thousands > of years, impractical but > > interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human > cognition? And AGI, if > > nothing else, models (however partially and > imperfectly with our > > contemporary technology) essential aspects of some > philosophically very > > important problems." > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joshua > > > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe > > or change your options, please go to: > > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
On 9/13/06, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would add that previous more-or-less general AIprojects have not greatly exceeded their modestexpectations. So given this experience perhaps thereis a tendency among potential sponsors to classify newAGI projects as crackpot schemes. And let's be honest, a lot of the talk under the heading of AGI really is in crackpot territory; given the lack of concrete results, it's not unreasonable for a potential sponsor to conclude it's all like that. This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
I would add that previous more-or-less general AI projects have not greatly exceeded their modest expectations. So given this experience perhaps there is a tendency among potential sponsors to classify new AGI projects as crackpot schemes. -Steve --- Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good question. > > I and Ben are drafting an introductory chapter for > the AGIRI Workshop > Proceedings, and in it we want to list the major > objections to AGI > research, then reject them one by one. Now the list > includes the > following: > > 1. "AGI is impossible" --- such as the opinions from > Lucas, Dreyfus, > and Penrose > > 2. "There is no such a thing as general > intelligence" --- > psychological arguments against any "g factor", and > AI arguments > against any "general problem solver" > > 3. "General-purpose systems are not as good as > special-purpose ones" > --- in terms of performance, efficiency, etc. > > 4. "AGI is already included in the current AI" --- > "Since X plays an > important role in intelligence, studying X > contributes to the study of > intelligence in general", where X can be replaced by > reasoning, > learning, planning, perceiving, acting, etc. > > 5. "It is too early to work on AGI" --- we should > wait for more > results from individual AI sub-fields, brain > research, hardware > innovations, ... > > 6. "AGI is nothing but hype" --- no AGI claim has > got any supporting > evidence in history > > 7. "AGI research is not fruitful" --- it is hard to > get result, > support, reward, ... > > 8. "AGI is dangerous" --- Terminator, Matrix, ... > > Anything else? > > Pei > > > On 9/13/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI > research and development being > > done? > > > > The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, > and others all agree on > > this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read > Are We Spiritual Machines, > > but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is > nothing more to say on this > > question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of > sniping this thread > > immediately.) > > > > I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am > surprised that more members of > > the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't > believe that , for > > example, almost all leading > > computer-science/cognitive-science professors are > > herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. > The leading universities do > > have their share of creative, free-thinking, > inquisitive people, and the > > same goes for other parts of the "establishment". > > > > > > To clarify what I am looking for, I should > describe a recent conversation. I > > spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who > has a PhD from, and does > > research in, a top university. The research is in > exactly the sort of > > technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him > about Kurzweil's trends on > > the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning > technologies. He did not > > agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained > why. > > > > Likewise, I'm looking for input from a > open-minded, intelligent, > > computer/cognitive scientist (who does not > strongly support AGI research) on > > the above question. I don't know where to find > them, so perhaps someone on > > this list could role-play one. > > > > What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not > pursue or support AGI > > research? Even if you believe that implementation > is a long way off, surely > > academia can study, and has studied for thousands > of years, impractical but > > interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human > cognition? And AGI, if > > nothing else, models (however partially and > imperfectly with our > > contemporary technology) essential aspects of some > philosophically very > > important problems." > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joshua > > > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe > > or change your options, please go to: > > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Hi, P.S. Ben, did you consider trying to invite Minsky to an AGI workshop? Certainly it's hard and perhaps not possible yet, but that would be a large advertisement for AGI. Marvin Minsky was invited to the AGIRI workshop but elected not to attend. We did have a number of respected AI academics however, not only youngsters like Nick Cassimatis but old hands like Stan Franklin and Hugo de Garis. I believe the AGI meme is spreading through academia at an exponential rate, but the exponent is not that large. The number of AGI-ish workshops and journal issues is increasing each year. My prediction is that 10 years from now AGI will be a flourishing subfield of academic AI -- though maybe under some other name such as "Human-Level AI" rather than under the name AGI. (Of course, this may happen because of some mavericks on the fringe of, or totally outside of, the academic establishment making an AGI breakthrough that wakes up the academic AI establishment to the near-term possibilities!!) And, I agree with Luke's comment that in private many academic AI researchers are not so down on AGI as one might think. But in public, they need to publish papers and get grants, and AGI is not very good for that. I know that my own academic CV would probably look "Better" from a university point of view if I removed all AGI stuff from it and just sold myself as a bioinformatics and language processing expert!!! So, I think there is a fair bit of enthusiasm lurking under the surface among academic narrow-AI experts, and once AGI becomes a bit more legitimated within the community, a lot of folks will jump very eagerly on the bandwagon... -- Ben g - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
On 9/13/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? Time and money. AGI takes too long. When people spend several years on something for no result whatsoever, they quite reasonably find something more productive to do with their time. Even if they were inclined to continue working on AGI, where would the money come from? People with money won't pay for continuing work in an area where years have passed with no result. This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Hi. the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't believe that , for example, almost all leading computer-science/cognitive-science professors are herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. The leading universities do have their share of creative, free-thinking, inquisitive people, and the same goes for other parts of the "establishment". I'm not that convinced that they are "not on board" when you talk with them in private, the fact is just that AGI is still a bit vague and very hard to sell (both in industry and as university research). I think the road with AGIRI and workshop that Ben has taken is very promising and might lead to a change in attitude. Recently I read an interview with Minsky and he seems to make a few points related to your question. Here is a link: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17164&ch=infotech&sc=&pg=2 - lk P.S. Ben, did you consider trying to invite Minsky to an AGI workshop? Certainly it's hard and perhaps not possible yet, but that would be a large advertisement for AGI. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Good question. I and Ben are drafting an introductory chapter for the AGIRI Workshop Proceedings, and in it we want to list the major objections to AGI research, then reject them one by one. Now the list includes the following: 1. "AGI is impossible" --- such as the opinions from Lucas, Dreyfus, and Penrose 2. "There is no such a thing as general intelligence" --- psychological arguments against any "g factor", and AI arguments against any "general problem solver" 3. "General-purpose systems are not as good as special-purpose ones" --- in terms of performance, efficiency, etc. 4. "AGI is already included in the current AI" --- "Since X plays an important role in intelligence, studying X contributes to the study of intelligence in general", where X can be replaced by reasoning, learning, planning, perceiving, acting, etc. 5. "It is too early to work on AGI" --- we should wait for more results from individual AI sub-fields, brain research, hardware innovations, ... 6. "AGI is nothing but hype" --- no AGI claim has got any supporting evidence in history 7. "AGI research is not fruitful" --- it is hard to get result, support, reward, ... 8. "AGI is dangerous" --- Terminator, Matrix, ... Anything else? Pei On 9/13/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am surprised that more members of the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't believe that , for example, almost all leading computer-science/cognitive-science professors are herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. The leading universities do have their share of creative, free-thinking, inquisitive people, and the same goes for other parts of the "establishment". To clarify what I am looking for, I should describe a recent conversation. I spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who has a PhD from, and does research in, a top university. The research is in exactly the sort of technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him about Kurzweil's trends on the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning technologies. He did not agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained why. Likewise, I'm looking for input from a open-minded, intelligent, computer/cognitive scientist (who does not strongly support AGI research) on the above question. I don't know where to find them, so perhaps someone on this list could role-play one. What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." Thanks, Joshua This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Yes, an important point. For our project we invented a new profession: AI psychologist. It is very hard to find computer scientists who are comfortable thinking about a program (AGI) in terms of teaching, training and psychology. Conversely, developmental and cognitive psychologists usually don’t have an interest in computers/ programming. Peter PS. http://adaptiveai.com/company/opportunities.htm From: Andrew Babian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:04:31 +0300, Joshua Fox wrote > I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? I think this is a very good question. Maybe the problem has just been daunting. It seems like only recently have there really started to be some good theoretical models, and maybe people just haven't realized that it may have just become reasonable. So maybe some is inertia. I'm in town here with Stan Franklin, who is one of those working on a general model, though I don't work with his group. He's had a relationship with the cognitive science people at the university here, and is glad to be able to do "real science". And it does seem like the computer people and psychologists really are in separate worlds and are not that into reaching out. I remember talking to a cog psych graduate student who seemed to have interests in understanding how mings might work. But I'm from an engineering background, and talking to her, it seemed like she came out and said she was only interested in how people work, and had no interest in how to get a machine to do it. A matter of priorities and interest, then, perhaps. As for the principles, I also seem to remember that they had some trouble getting the primary cognitive psychologist to get that interested in helping with the theoretical psychology because he had so many other things he was working on. My exposure to that group was very limited though, but I remember getting that feeling. And, they have a cog sci seminar where really try to get the computer people to work with the psychologists, but a semester is too short. I suppose I need to find out if there are any deeper collaborations going on. … This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
I considered and researched this issue thoroughly a few years ago. For a summary: http://adaptiveai.com/faq/index.htm#few_researchers For detail: http://adaptiveai.com/research/index.htm (section 8) In addition to asking researchers you also need to look at psychological and hidden motives, as well as the dynamics of funding sources (DARPA, etc), business and academia. Peter From: Joshua Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done?... This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
Joshua Fox wrote: I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am surprised that more members of the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't believe that , for example, almost all leading computer-science/cognitive-science professors are herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. The leading universities do have their share of creative, free-thinking, inquisitive people, and the same goes for other parts of the "establishment". To clarify what I am looking for, I should describe a recent conversation. I spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who has a PhD from, and does research in, a top university. The research is in exactly the sort of technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him about Kurzweil's trends on the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning technologies. He did not agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained why. Likewise, I'm looking for input from a open-minded, intelligent, computer/cognitive scientist (who does not strongly support AGI research) on the above question. I don't know where to find them, so perhaps someone on this list could role-play one. What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." I think the simple answer (all I got time for now :-)) is twofold: 1) If you ask why Kurzweil's ideas are not immediately infectious, it is because his claims (and all singularity claims) are not just a few steps beyond the current state of the art, they *look* like a wild leap into the realms of speculation. Not much to be done about this: slowly, over the next few years, it will become mor respectable, and then one day you will wake up to find every researcher on the planet trying to get grants in the new "singularity" field-cum-bandwagon. 2) Researchers need small, biteable, 6-months-to-publishable-paper projects to get their teeth into. They would say that their Narrow-AI research projects ARE the biteable chunks for today that will lead to AGI tomorrow. Why do they do this? Because the people higher up from them will crucify them if their work starts to get oriented towards anything else but high publication rate in "respectable" journals ... don't do this, and they will start to find promotions slipping, or they'll just be dumped. Short term results pressure in other words. Richard Loosemore. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:04:31 +0300, Joshua Fox wrote > I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? I think this is a very good question. Maybe the problem has just been daunting. It seems like only recently have there really started to be some good theoretical models, and maybe people just haven't realized that it may have just become reasonable. So maybe some is inertia. I'm in town here with Stan Franklin, who is one of those working on a general model, though I don't work with his group. He's had a relationship with the cognitive science people at the university here, and is glad to be able to do "real science". And it does seem like the computer people and psychologists really are in separate worlds and are not that into reaching out. I remember talking to a cog psych graduate student who seemed to have interests in understanding how mings might work. But I'm from an engineering background, and talking to her, it seemed like she came out and said she was only interested in how people work, and had no interest in how to get a machine to do it. A matter of priorities and interest, then, perhaps. As for the principles, I also seem to remember that they had some trouble getting the primary cognitive psychologist to get that interested in helping with the theoretical psychology because he had so many other things he was working on. My exposure to that group was very limited though, but I remember getting that feeling. And, they have a cog sci seminar where really try to get the computer people to work with the psychologists, but a semester is too short. I suppose I need to find out if there are any deeper collaborations going on. > The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I haven't looked at them recently or deeply enough to know what their common conclusion must be, so I would like to hear what you mean by this. > What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." But maybe it is just because the noticeable results and applications (and therefore the money) don't seem to be there. I guess that's probably my excuse. But I need to thank Ben for putting the Agiri conference video stuff up. One thing I got from them is that maybe we do have the theory and computer power now, so it is a doable thing. And maybe a single person can do a reasonable general project, so I'm thinking of getting back started on doing some things, though it's going to have to be after hours stuff. I still need a day job. andi This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[agi] Why so few AGI projects?
I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done?The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I respect existing AGI researchers, but I am surprised that more members of the "establishment" are not on board. I just can't believe that , for example, almost all leading computer-science/cognitive-science professors are herd-following closed-minded stuck-in-the-muds. The leading universities do have their share of creative, free-thinking, inquisitive people, and the same goes for other parts of the "establishment". To clarify what I am looking for, I should describe a recent conversation. I spoke to an open-minded and intelligent friend who has a PhD from, and does research in, a top university. The research is in exactly the sort of technologies used in brain-scanning. I asked him about Kurzweil's trends on the accelerating advance of human-brain-scanning technologies. He did not agree with Kurzweil's conclusions, and explained why. Likewise, I'm looking for input from a open-minded, intelligent, computer/cognitive scientist (who does not strongly support AGI research) on the above question. I don't know where to find them, so perhaps someone on this list could role-play one. What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." Thanks,Joshua This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
