Re: [agi] AI on TV
Ben, I just read the Bio. You gave alot more play to his ideas than the show did. You probably know this, but Starlab has folded and I think he was off to the states... The show seemed to indicate that nothing of note ever came out of the project. In fact, it appeared to not generate one new network . What they didn't detail was the cause of this. It could have ben hardware related, I don't know. They were also having serious contract problems with the Russian fellow who built it. He had effectively disabled the machine from the US until he got some more money, which eventually killed the whole thing. What a waste. Maybe you can buy the machine off Ebay now. They said it would be auctioned... They did give alot of play to his seemingly contrarion ideas about the implications of his work. It was a rather dismal outlook on societies lack of general acceptance of AI and\or enhancement. I hope he was off base in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if a small group of radical anti-AI people emerge with hostile intent. Another good reason to not be so visible!! Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [agi] AI on TV There was a show on the tube last night on TechTV. It was part of their weekly Secret, Strange and True series. They chronicled three guys who are working on creating advanced AI. One guy was from Belgium. My apologies to him if he reads this list, but he was a rather quirky and stressed character. He had designed a computer that was basically a collection of chips. He raised a million and had it built on spec. I gather he was expecting something to miraculously emerge from this collection, but alas, nothing did. It was really stressful watching his stress. He had very high visibility in the country and the pressure was immense as he promised a lot. I have real doubts about his approach, even though I am a lay-AI person. Also, its clear from watching him that its sometimes good to have shoestring budgets and low visibility. Less stress and more forced creativity in your approach... Kevin: Was the guy from Belgium perhaps Hugo de Garis?? [Whois not in Belgium anymore, but who designed a radical hardware based approach to AGI, and who is a bit of a quirky guy?? ...] I visited Hugo at Starlab [when it existed] in Brussels inmid-2001 See my brief bio of Hugo at http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/deGaris.htm -- Ben G
RE: [agi] AI on TV
Title: Message On Dec. 9 Kevin said: "It seems to me that building a strictly "black box" AGI that only uses text or graphical input\output can have tremendous implications for our society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost anything can be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing because it will make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses" I agree wholeheartedly. Sony and Honda as well as several military contractors are spending 10s perhaps hundreds of million dollars on RD robotics programs which incorporate the vision, and analog control, and data acquisition for industry, the military, and yes even the toy companies. Once AGIs are ready to fly it will be able to interface with these systems through software APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) and will not even care about the low-level programs that enable them move about and visually survey their environments. Too often those who seek the spotlight are really sincere, but either need recognition for their own self reassurance or as a method of attracting potential funding. There seems to be an unwritten law in the universe which that says all major inventions will involve major sacrifice and loss for those who dare to tackle what has been deemed impossible by others. From Galileo to Edison, to Tesla, to maybe one of us. Before we succeed, ifwe succeed, the universe will exact it's toll. For nature will not give up her secrets willingly and intelligence may be her most closely guarded secret of all! Don't forget that genius and madness sometimes walk arm in arm! And as the man says if you weren't cazy when you got in, you probably will be before you get out!. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of maitriSent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:08 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [agi] AI on TV There was a show on the tube last night on TechTV. It was part of their weekly Secret, Strange and True series. They chronicled three guys who are working on creating advanced AI. One guy was from Belgium. My apologies to him if he reads this list, but he was a rather quirky and stressed character. He had designed a computer that was basically a collection of chips. He raised a million and had it built on spec. I gather he was expecting something to miraculously emerge from this collection, but alas, nothing did. It was really stressful watching his stress. He had very high visibility in the country and the pressure was immense as he promised a lot. I have real doubts about his approach, even though I am a lay-AI person. Also, its clear from watching him that its sometimes good to have shoestring budgets and low visibility. Less stress and more forced creativity in your approach... The second guy was from either England or the states, not sure. He was working out of his garage with his wife. He was trying to develop robot AI including vision, speech, hearing and movement. He was clearly floundering as he radically redesigned what he was doing probably a dozen times during the 1 hour show. I think this experimentation has value. But I really wonder if large scale trial and error will result in AGI. I don't think so. I think trial and error will, of course, be essential during development, but T and E of the entire underlying architecture seems a folly to me. Since the problem is SO immense, I believe one must start with a very sound and detailed game plan that can be tweaked as things move along. The last guy was brooks at MIT. They were developing a robot with enhanced vision capabilities. They also failed miserably. I am rather glad that they did. They re funded by DOD, and are basically trying to build a robotic killing machine. Just what we need. It seems to me that trying to tackle the vision problem is too big of a place to start. While all this work will have value down the line, is it essential to AGI? It seems to me that building a strictly "black box" AGI that only uses text or graphical input\output can have tremendous implications for our society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost anything can be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing because it will make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses The show was rather discouraging, especially if one considers that these three folks are leading the way towards
RE: [agi] AI on TV
I was at Starlab one week after it folded. Hugo was the only one left there -- he was living in an apartment in the building. It was a huge, beautiful, ancient, building, formerly the Czech Embassy to Brussels I saw the CAM-Brain machine (CBM) there, disabled by Korkin (the maker) due to non-payment... There is a CBM in use at ATR in Japan [where Hugo used to work], but it's mostly being used for simple hardware-type experiments, not advanced learning... ; there was one at Lernout-Hauspie, but I don't know what became of it when that firm went under... Hugo is currently designing the CBM-2, and I've given him some possibly useful ideas in that regard... I can sympathize somewhat with Korkin: he spent his own $$ on the hardware, and then starlab did not pay him, breaking its contractual obligations. He is struggling financially. And Hugo was not at all politic or sympathetic in dealing with him, because Hugo is always so wrapped up in his own problems. Well, such is human life I tried briefly to help smooth things over w/ Korkin, but Hugo's attitude was sufficiently out-there that it was not possible... -- Ben -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of maitriSent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV Ben, I just read the Bio. You gave alot more play to his ideas than the show did. You probably know this, but Starlab has folded and I think he was off to the states... The show seemed to indicate that nothing of note ever came out of the project. In fact, it appeared to not generate one new network . What they didn't detail was the cause of this. It could have ben hardware related, I don't know. They were also having serious contract problems with the Russian fellow who built it. He had effectively disabled the machine from the US until he got some more money, which eventually killed the whole thing. What a waste. Maybe you can buy the machine off Ebay now. They said it would be auctioned... They did give alot of play to his seemingly contrarion ideas about the implications of his work. It was a rather dismal outlook on societies lack of general acceptance of AI and\or enhancement. I hope he was off base in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if a small group of radical anti-AI people emerge with hostile intent. Another good reason to not be so visible!! Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [agi] AI on TV There was a show on the tube last night on TechTV. It was part of their weekly Secret, Strange and True series. They chronicled three guys who are working on creating advanced AI. One guy was from Belgium. My apologies to him if he reads this list, but he was a rather quirky and stressed character. He had designed a computer that was basically a collection of chips. He raised a million and had it built on spec. I gather he was expecting something to miraculously emerge from this collection, but alas, nothing did. It was really stressful watching his stress. He had very high visibility in the country and the pressure was immense as he promised a lot. I have real doubts about his approach, even though I am a lay-AI person. Also, its clear from watching him that its sometimes good to have shoestring budgets and low visibility. Less stress and more forced creativity in your approach... Kevin: Was the guy from Belgium perhaps Hugo de Garis?? [Whois not in Belgium anymore, but who designed a radical hardware based approach to AGI, and who is a bit of a quirky guy?? ...] I visited Hugo at Starlab [when it existed] in Brussels inmid-2001 See my brief bio of Hugo at http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/deGaris.htm -- Ben G
Re: [agi] AI on TV
maitri wrote: The second guy was from either England or the states, not sure. He was working out of his garage with his wife. He was trying to develop robot AI including vision, speech, hearing and movement. This one's a bit more difficult, Steve Grand perhaps? http://www.cyberlife-research.com/people/steve/ Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
Gary Miller wrote: On Dec. 9 Kevin said: It seems to me that building a strictly black box AGI that only uses text or graphical input\output can have tremendous implications for our society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost anything can be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing because it will make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses My understanding is that this current trend came about as follows: Classical AI system where either largely disconnected from the physical world or lived strictly in artificial mirco worlds. This lead to a number of problems including the famous symbol grounding problem where the agent's symbols lacked any grounding in an external reality. As a reaction to these problems many decided that AI agents needed to be more grounded in the physical world, embodiment as they call it. Some now take this to an extreme and think that you should start with robotic and sensory and control stuff and forget about logic and what thinking is and all that sort of thing. This is what you see now in many areas of AI research, Brooks and the Cog project at MIT being one such example. Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
that's him... - Original Message - From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV maitri wrote: The second guy was from either England or the states, not sure. He was working out of his garage with his wife. He was trying to develop robot AI including vision, speech, hearing and movement. This one's a bit more difficult, Steve Grand perhaps? http://www.cyberlife-research.com/people/steve/ Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
I don't want to underestimate the value of embodiment for an AI system, especially for the development of consciousness. But this is just my opinion... As far as a very useful AGI, I don't see the necessity of a body or sensory inputs beyond textual input. Almost any form can be represented as mathematical models that can easily be input to the system in that manner. I'm sure there are others on this list that have thought a lot more about this than I have.. Kevin - Original Message - From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV Gary Miller wrote: On Dec. 9 Kevin said: It seems to me that building a strictly black box AGI that only uses text or graphical input\output can have tremendous implications for our society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost anything can be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing because it will make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses My understanding is that this current trend came about as follows: Classical AI system where either largely disconnected from the physical world or lived strictly in artificial mirco worlds. This lead to a number of problems including the famous symbol grounding problem where the agent's symbols lacked any grounding in an external reality. As a reaction to these problems many decided that AI agents needed to be more grounded in the physical world, embodiment as they call it. Some now take this to an extreme and think that you should start with robotic and sensory and control stuff and forget about logic and what thinking is and all that sort of thing. This is what you see now in many areas of AI research, Brooks and the Cog project at MIT being one such example. Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
I have a paper (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/peiwang/PUBLICATION/#semantics) on this topic, which is mostly in agreement with what Kevin said. For an intelligent system, it is important for its concepts and beliefs to be grounded on the system's experience, but such experience can be textual. Of course, sensorimotor experience is richer, but it is not fundamentally different from textual experience. Pei - Original Message - From: maitri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV I don't want to underestimate the value of embodiment for an AI system, especially for the development of consciousness. But this is just my opinion... As far as a very useful AGI, I don't see the necessity of a body or sensory inputs beyond textual input. Almost any form can be represented as mathematical models that can easily be input to the system in that manner. I'm sure there are others on this list that have thought a lot more about this than I have.. Kevin - Original Message - From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV Gary Miller wrote: On Dec. 9 Kevin said: It seems to me that building a strictly black box AGI that only uses text or graphical input\output can have tremendous implications for our society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost anything can be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing because it will make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses My understanding is that this current trend came about as follows: Classical AI system where either largely disconnected from the physical world or lived strictly in artificial mirco worlds. This lead to a number of problems including the famous symbol grounding problem where the agent's symbols lacked any grounding in an external reality. As a reaction to these problems many decided that AI agents needed to be more grounded in the physical world, embodiment as they call it. Some now take this to an extreme and think that you should start with robotic and sensory and control stuff and forget about logic and what thinking is and all that sort of thing. This is what you see now in many areas of AI research, Brooks and the Cog project at MIT being one such example. Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
Ben Goertzel wrote: This is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of pragmatics I think that a perceptual-motor domain in which a variety of cognitively simple patterns are simply expressed, will make world-grounded early language learning much easier... If anyone has the software for this, please tell me! =) -- pain (n): see Linux. http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/ --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
I think my position is similar to Ben's; it's not really what you ground things in, but rather that you don't expose your limited little computer brain to an environment that is too complex -- at least not to start with. Language, even reasonably simple context free languages, could well be too rich for a baby AI. Trying to process 3D input is far too complex. Better then to start with something simple like 2D pixel patterns as Ben suggests. The A2I2 project by Peter Voss is taking a similar approach. Once very simple concepts and relations have been formed at this level then I would expect an AI to be better able to start dealing with richer things like basic language using what it learned previously as a starting point. For example, relating simple patterns of language that have an immediate and direct relation to the visual environment to start with and slowly building up from there. Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
On this issue, we can distinguish 4 approaches: (1) let symbols get their meaning through interpretation (provided in another language) --- this is the approach used in traditional symbolic AI. (2) let symbols get their meaning by grounding on textual experience --- this is what I and Kevin suggested. (3) let symbols get their meaning by grounding on simplified perceptual experience --- this is what Ben and Shane suggested. (4) let symbols get their meaning by grounding on human-level perceptual experience --- this is what Brooks (the robotics researcher at MIT) and Harnad (who raised the symbol grounding issue in the first place) proposed. My opinion is: in principle, the approach (1) doesn't work well for AI, while the last 3 approaches are in the same category. Of course, the richer the experience is, the more capable the system will be. However, to actually develop an AGI theory/system, I'd rather start with (2), and leave (3) for the next step, and (4) for the future. Therefore, though I basically agree with what Ben and Shane said, I won't do that in NARS very soon. Pei - Original Message - From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV I think my position is similar to Ben's; it's not really what you ground things in, but rather that you don't expose your limited little computer brain to an environment that is too complex -- at least not to start with. Language, even reasonably simple context free languages, could well be too rich for a baby AI. Trying to process 3D input is far too complex. Better then to start with something simple like 2D pixel patterns as Ben suggests. The A2I2 project by Peter Voss is taking a similar approach. Once very simple concepts and relations have been formed at this level then I would expect an AI to be better able to start dealing with richer things like basic language using what it learned previously as a starting point. For example, relating simple patterns of language that have an immediate and direct relation to the visual environment to start with and slowly building up from there. Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
