subject:"Re\: AGI"

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

2023-10-18 Thread 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List

 For me, as of now, I seem to be gravitating toward Panpsychism due to work by 
physicists. It seems functionally workable. For AI, until it's coming out with 
a flood of new inventions, I am not sure how to calibrate, otherwise, how much 
progress is really being achieved? I will view your Youtube post on the upgrade 
to Chatgpt4 when the chance occurs. Thanks. 
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 06:27:31 AM EDT, John Clark 
 wrote:  

 On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 5:46 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 > John, I am discussing this with a couple of people on another board. If we 
 >go for a 2024 AGI, what do you guess will be (high likelihood) of any impact 
 >on us, the peasants? Will it pick great stock tips, overturn all religion, 
 >make better art and poems that the LLM's???

For the first time a computer was able to pass the Turing Test about 8 months 
ago so I would argue that we already have Artificial General Intelligence and 
what we're really talking about is Artificial Super Intelligence, which I would 
define as a computer that can perform ANY intellectual task better than ANY 
human. And it's impossible even in theory to figure out what something smarter 
than you and who gets even smarter every day plans to do; that's why they call 
it a Singularity, it's a horizon beyond which we cannot see or do better than 
random chance at making correct predictions. Once Artificial Super Intelligence 
is achieved the only thing holding it back would be manual dexterity, and 
although robotics hasn't improved quite as fast as AI has it's still moving 
pretty fast.

> For me, I ain't getting enthused, until low error-qc gets merged with AI.

It's pretty obvious now that Quantum Computing would just be icing on the cake, 
Artificial Super Intelligence can be achieved without it, maybe it will come in 
handy for Mega Ultra Super Intelligence.   

> And, a Dem sez, what? 

Neither political party is currently paying much attention to the gargantuan 
events that are happening right now under their nose, they're going on pretty 
much as usual, with the Democrats worrying about climate change, Putin's war in 
Ukraine, North Korea, and a Chinese take over of Taiwan, while the Republicans 
believe the most monumental issues of the day are gay marriage, alien 
immigration, abortion, Hunter Biden's laptop, Hillary Clinton's email server, 
excessive wokeness, low flush toilets, the "stolen" 2020 presidential election, 
windmills killing birds, and windmills killing  ah ...whales.

Eventually there will come a point when even politicians realize that the 
issues that they thought were so important, basically the same things their 
grandparents thought were important, were really trivial compared to recent 
developments in AI, and the Democrats will then come up with a coherent plan to 
confront it, it may not be an effective plan and in fact it almost certainly 
will not be but at least they'll try; however  recent events have demonstrated 
once again that the Republicans are unable to lead the nation anywhere except 
in a circle.  
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
wkw

 AGI by September 2024, maybe March

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1OK%2BxsWwuOVheYP0SGzDkjJLtP0Kk16jEiaTUVhXgc1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1577390165.414599.1697683210796%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

2023-10-18 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 5:46 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> John, I am discussing this with a couple of people on another board. If
> we go for a 2024 AGI, what do you guess will be (high likelihood) of any
> impact on us, the peasants? Will it pick great stock tips, overturn all
> religion, make better art and poems that the LLM's???*
>

For the first time a computer was able to pass the Turing Test about 8
months ago so I would argue that we already have Artificial General
Intelligence and what we're really talking about is Artificial Super
Intelligence, which I would define as a computer that can perform ANY
intellectual task better than ANY human. And it's impossible even in theory
to figure out what something smarter than you and who gets even smarter
every day plans to do; that's why they call it a Singularity, it's a
horizon beyond which we cannot see or do better than random chance at
making correct predictions. Once Artificial Super Intelligence is achieved
the only thing holding it back would be manual dexterity, and although
robotics hasn't improved quite as fast as AI has it's still moving pretty
fast.

*> For me, I ain't getting enthused, until low error-qc gets merged with
> AI.*

It's pretty obvious now that Quantum Computing would just be icing on the
cake, Artificial Super Intelligence can be achieved without it, maybe it
will come in handy for Mega Ultra Super Intelligence.

*> And, a Dem sez, what? *
>

Neither political party is currently paying much attention to the
gargantuan events that are happening right now under their nose, they're
going on pretty much as usual, with the Democrats worrying about climate
change, Putin's war in Ukraine, North Korea, and a Chinese take over of
Taiwan, while the Republicans believe the most monumental issues of the day
are gay marriage, alien immigration, abortion, Hunter Biden's laptop,
Hillary Clinton's email server, excessive wokeness, low flush toilets, the
"stolen" 2020 presidential election, windmills killing birds, and windmills
killing  ah ...whales.

Eventually there will come a point when even politicians realize that the
issues that they thought were so important, basically the same things their
grandparents thought were important, were really trivial compared to recent
developments in AI, and the Democrats will then come up with a coherent
plan to confront it, it may not be an effective plan and in fact it almost
certainly will not be but at least they'll try; however  recent events have
demonstrated once again that the Republicans are unable to lead the nation
anywhere except in a circle.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wkw

> AGI by September 2024, maybe March
> 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1OK%2BxsWwuOVheYP0SGzDkjJLtP0Kk16jEiaTUVhXgc1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

2023-10-17 Thread 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List

 John, I am discussing this with a couple of people on another board. If we go 
for a 2024 AGI, what do you guess will be (high likelihood) of any impact on 
us, the peasants? Will it pick great stock tips, overturn all religion, make 
better art and poems that the LLM's???
For me, I ain't getting enthused, until low error-qc gets merged with AI.
And, a Dem sez, what? 
Spud100, every cynical, ever watchful  C(' ' )@ Cuz Halloween!
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 05:14:25 PM EDT, John Clark 
 wrote:  
 
 AGI by September 2024, maybe March

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
smm




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3fVwymCLpcfFo2RLKDB81q-ajzianYJ9FKR1Pqz4m36A%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2096186047.68099.1697579204098%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: AGI

2012-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 02 Nov 2012, at 22:44, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno:
you got me.
I wrote about things we cannot know - we have no capability to think
of it - and you deny that based on products of the human mind (math
- logic) saying YES, we can know everything (that we or our products
DO know).

I am sorry John, but this is unclear, and a bit out of the context, so
I can't figure out what I was saying. But once we bet we are machine,
we can definitely know some things and be sure the machine cannot
know, as we derive a contradiction from it.
We cannot know everything about reality, nor even what is reality, we
can still propose theoreis and reason in such theories.

You claimed to be agnostic ("more than myself") - now I don't see it.
*
As I stated: Bohm never went back to his metaphysical ideas while in
London and Hiley - posthumusly - composed their book upon this
(London) period, so you I doubt whether you can read anything in
THAT book -

I was mentioning his conversation with Krishnamurti.

Bruno

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2012, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher
the listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some
more relevant list-post sometimes.

You wrote about the U-M:
"...an entity capable of computing all partial computable
functions..."

I would be cautios with "all" since we know only SOME.

Not with Church Thesis (CT). It is here that a "miracle occur". For
all notion of "all" in mathematics, we can refute the universality
pretension by a tool known as diagonalisation. But there is one
exception: the notion of computation, which seems (and "is" with CT)
close for the diagonalization. this is how, mainly, the mathematical
discovery of the universal machine arrived.

I plead ignorance to the difference of a Loeb and another type(?)
Univ. Machine. Is the Leobian restricted?

In logic; restriction on the axioms leads to unrestriction of the
models. and vice versa. Loebian machines are

- universal (for computability)
- they have the cognitive ability to know (in some sense) that they
are universal (and thus they know that they are infinitely ignorant,
even if only with respect to the arithmetical truth).

They have less models, but more knowledge, which of course lessen
the models.

In what sense? BTW: What is 'universal'?
I would think twice to deem something as

It is a precise mathematical notion, and it correspond indeed to
what computers are, but also, brain, cells, etc. Even without comp
(comp assume that brain cells are not more than universal, at some
level).

"... it might be intrinsically complex..."

EVERYTHING is intrinsically (too!) complex. We just take simplified
versions - adjusted to OUR mindful capabilities.

"intelligence vs competence"?

The 'oldies' (from yesterday back to the Greeks/Indians etc.) were
'competent' in the actual (then) inventory of the knowledge base of
their time. That gave their 'intelligence' (the way I defined it)
so: no controversy.

Bohm discussed with Krishnamurty before his association in London
with Hiley. The posthumous book the latter wrote in their
combined(?) authorship includes Bohm's earlier physical stances
(~1952) even before his Brazilian escape.
I do not accuse Hiley of improperness, but he left out all the
Krishnamurtian mystique embraced by Bohm. Granted: Bohm taught later
advanced physical science in London but as far as I know never went
back on his interim (call it: metaphysical?) philosophy.

I should certainly reread this. Want to comment, but I am not sure,
need to reread some part. I will see.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

2012-11-02 Thread John Mikes

Bruno:
you got me.
I wrote about things we cannot know - we have no capability to think of it
- and you deny that based on products of the human mind (math - logic)
saying YES, we can know everything (that we or our products DO know).
You claimed to be agnostic ("more than myself") - now I don't see it.
*
As I stated: Bohm never went back to his metaphysical ideas while in London
and Hiley - posthumusly - composed their book upon this (London) period, so
you I doubt whether you can read anything in THAT book -
JM

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Oct 2012, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher the
>> listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some more
>> relevant list-post sometimes.
>>
>> You wrote about the U-M:
>> "...an entity capable of computing all partial computable functions..."
>>
>> I would be cautios with "all" since we know only SOME.
>>
>
> Not with Church Thesis (CT). It is here that a "miracle occur". For all
> notion of "all" in mathematics, we can refute the universality pretension
> by a tool known as diagonalisation. But there is one exception: the notion
> of computation, which seems (and "is" with CT) close for the
> diagonalization. this is how, mainly, the mathematical discovery of the
> universal machine arrived.
>
>
>
>
>
>  I plead ignorance to the difference of a Loeb and another type(?) Univ.
>> Machine. Is the Leobian restricted?
>>
>
> In logic; restriction on the axioms leads to unrestriction of the models.
> and vice versa. Loebian machines are
>
> - universal (for computability)
> - they have the cognitive ability to know (in some sense) that they are
> universal (and thus they know that they are infinitely ignorant, even if
> only with respect to the arithmetical truth).
>
> They have less models, but more knowledge, which of course lessen the
> models.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  In what sense? BTW: What is 'universal'?
>> I would think twice to deem something as
>>
>
> It is a precise mathematical notion, and it correspond indeed to what
> computers are, but also, brain, cells, etc. Even without comp (comp assume
> that brain cells are not more than universal, at some level).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> "... it might be intrinsically complex..."
>>
>> EVERYTHING is intrinsically (too!) complex. We just take simplified
>> versions - adjusted to OUR mindful capabilities.
>>
>> "intelligence vs competence"?
>>
>> The 'oldies' (from yesterday back to the Greeks/Indians etc.) were
>> 'competent' in the actual (then) inventory of the knowledge base of their
>> time. That gave their 'intelligence' (the way I defined it) so: no
>> controversy.
>>
>> Bohm discussed with Krishnamurty before his association in London with
>> Hiley. The posthumous book the latter wrote in their combined(?) authorship
>> includes Bohm's earlier physical stances (~1952)  even before his Brazilian
>> escape.
>> I do not accuse Hiley of improperness, but he left out all the
>> Krishnamurtian mystique embraced by Bohm. Granted: Bohm taught later
>> advanced physical science in London but as far as I know never went back on
>> his interim (call it: metaphysical?) philosophy.
>>
>
> I should certainly reread this. Want to comment, but I am not sure, need
> to reread some part. I will see.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

2012-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Oct 2012, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:



Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher  
the listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some  
more relevant list-post sometimes.


You wrote about the U-M:
"...an entity capable of computing all partial computable  
functions..."


I would be cautios with "all" since we know only SOME.


Not with Church Thesis (CT). It is here that a "miracle occur". For  
all notion of "all" in mathematics, we can refute the universality  
pretension by a tool known as diagonalisation. But there is one  
exception: the notion of computation, which seems (and "is" with CT)  
close for the diagonalization. this is how, mainly, the mathematical  
discovery of the universal machine arrived.





I plead ignorance to the difference of a Loeb and another type(?)  
Univ. Machine. Is the Leobian restricted?


In logic; restriction on the axioms leads to unrestriction of the  
models. and vice versa. Loebian machines are


- universal (for computability)
- they have the cognitive ability to know (in some sense) that they  
are universal (and thus they know that they are infinitely ignorant,  
even if only with respect to the arithmetical truth).


They have less models, but more knowledge, which of course lessen the  
models.







In what sense? BTW: What is 'universal'?
I would think twice to deem something as


It is a precise mathematical notion, and it correspond indeed to what  
computers are, but also, brain, cells, etc. Even without comp (comp  
assume that brain cells are not more than universal, at some level).







"... it might be intrinsically complex..."

EVERYTHING is intrinsically (too!) complex. We just take simplified  
versions - adjusted to OUR mindful capabilities.


"intelligence vs competence"?

The 'oldies' (from yesterday back to the Greeks/Indians etc.) were  
'competent' in the actual (then) inventory of the knowledge base of  
their time. That gave their 'intelligence' (the way I defined it)  
so: no controversy.


Bohm discussed with Krishnamurty before his association in London  
with Hiley. The posthumous book the latter wrote in their  
combined(?) authorship includes Bohm's earlier physical stances  
(~1952)  even before his Brazilian escape.
I do not accuse Hiley of improperness, but he left out all the  
Krishnamurtian mystique embraced by Bohm. Granted: Bohm taught later  
advanced physical science in London but as far as I know never went  
back on his interim (call it: metaphysical?) philosophy.


I should certainly reread this. Want to comment, but I am not sure,  
need to reread some part. I will see.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

2012-10-21 Thread John Mikes

Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher the
listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some more
relevant list-post sometimes.

You wrote about the U-M:
*"...an entity capable of computing all partial computable functions..."*
**
I would be cautios with "all" since we know only SOME.
I plead ignorance to the difference of a Loeb and another type(?) Univ.
Machine. Is the Leobian restricted? In what sense? BTW: What is
'universal'?
I would think twice to deem something as

*"... it might be intrinsically complex..."*
**
*EVERYTHING* is intrinsically (too!) complex. We just take simplified
versions - adjusted to OUR mindful capabilities.

*"intelligence vs competence"?*
**
The 'oldies' (from yesterday back to the Greeks/Indians etc.) were
'competent' in the actual (then) inventory of the knowledge base of their
time. That gave their 'intelligence' (the way I defined it) so: no
controversy.

*Bohm* discussed with Krishnamurty before his association in London with
Hiley. The posthumous book the latter wrote in their combined(?) authorship
includes Bohm's earlier physical stances (~1952)  even before his Brazilian
escape.
I do not accuse Hiley of improperness, but he left out all the
Krishnamurtian mystique embraced by Bohm. Granted: Bohm taught later
advanced physical science in London but as far as I know never went back on
his interim (call it: metaphysical?) philosophy.

John M



On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> John,
>
>  On 09 Oct 2012, at 22:22, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Bruno,
> examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of
> detailed description what the universal machine consists of and how it
> functions (maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive ID. Your
> "lot of examples" rather denies that you have one.
>
>
> A universal machine is any entity capable of computing all partial
> computable functions. There are many, and for many we can prove that they
> are universal machine. For many we can't prove that, or it might be
> intrinsically complex to do so.
>
> A Löbian machine is a universal machine which "knows", in a weak technical
> precise sense, that they are universal.
>
> Same remark as above, we can prove that some machine are Löbian, but we
> might not been able to recognize all those who are.
>
>
>
>  And:
> 'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them," it may not be enough for me. I
> don't really know HOW conscious I am.
>
>
> Nor do I. Nor do they, when you listened to them, taking into account
> their silence.
>
>
>
> I like your  counter-point in competence and intelligence.
> I identified the "wisdom" (maybe it should read: the intelligence) of the
> oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known circumstances -
> maybe it is competence.
>
>
> You meant "intelligence"? I would agree.
>
> You know I prefer the Bohm who discuss with Krishnamurti, than the Bohm
> (the same person to be sure) who believes in quantum hidden variables.
>
>
>  To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as impediment
> ('blinded by').
>
>
> Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that, the more she
> know, the more she is ignorant.
>
> Knowledge is only a lantern on a very big unknown. The more light you put
> on it, the bigger it seems.
>
> But we can ask question (= develop theories). And we can have experiences.
>
>
> Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that the more she can
> be intelligent, the more she can be stupid.
>
> And that competence is quite relative, but can be magnified uncomputably,
> but also (alas) unpredictably, with many simple heuristics, like:
>
> - tolerate errors,
> - work in union,
> - encourage changes of mind,
>
> etc.  (By results of Case and Smith, Blum and Blum, Gold, Putnam, etc.).
> reference in the biblio of "conscience et mécanisme", in my url.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> John M
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to
>>> D. Deutsch.
>>> Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no.
>>> Thanks for copying.
>>> It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
>>> ramifications prima vista.
>>> What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to
>>> Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
>>>
>>> I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability
>>> of reading 'inter'
>>> lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize
>>> the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science'
>>> definitions.
>>> Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
>>> (although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
>>> machine unidentified).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Unidentified?I give a lot of  examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me, and
>> the octopus.
>>
>> In some sense they su

Re: AGI

2012-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


John,

On 09 Oct 2012, at 22:22, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno,
examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of  
detailed description what the universal machine consists of and how  
it functions (maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive  
ID. Your "lot of examples" rather denies that you have one.


A universal machine is any entity capable of computing all partial  
computable functions. There are many, and for many we can prove that  
they are universal machine. For many we can't prove that, or it might  
be intrinsically complex to do so.


A Löbian machine is a universal machine which "knows", in a weak  
technical precise sense, that they are universal.


Same remark as above, we can prove that some machine are Löbian, but  
we might not been able to recognize all those who are.





And:
'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them," it may not be enough for  
me. I don't really know HOW conscious I am.


Nor do I. Nor do they, when you listened to them, taking into account  
their silence.





I like your  counter-point in competence and intelligence.
I identified the "wisdom" (maybe it should read: the intelligence)  
of the oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known  
circumstances - maybe it is competence.


You meant "intelligence"? I would agree.

You know I prefer the Bohm who discuss with Krishnamurti, than the  
Bohm (the same person to be sure) who believes in quantum hidden  
variables.



To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as  
impediment ('blinded by').


Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that, the more she  
know, the more she is ignorant.


Knowledge is only a lantern on a very big unknown. The more light you  
put on it, the bigger it seems.


But we can ask question (= develop theories). And we can have  
experiences.



Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that the more she  
can be intelligent, the more she can be stupid.


And that competence is quite relative, but can be magnified  
uncomputably, but also (alas) unpredictably, with many simple  
heuristics, like:


- tolerate errors,
- work in union,
- encourage changes of mind,

etc.  (By results of Case and Smith, Blum and Blum, Gold, Putnam,  
etc.). reference in the biblio of "conscience et mécanisme", in my url.


Bruno






John M

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in  
response to D. Deutsch.
Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no.  
Thanks for copying.
It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with  
ramifications prima vista.
What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate  
to Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.


I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the  
capability of reading 'inter'
lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to  
realize the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical  
science' definitions.
Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines  
(although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal  
machine unidentified).



Unidentified?I give a lot of  examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me,  
and the octopus.


In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for  
me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as  
me, and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in  
which case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as  
we are blinded by our competences).


It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but  
I am not sure.


Bruno


Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical  
limits of information - the content of the actual "MODEL" of the  
world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology  
can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may  
be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do  
not go BEYOND.


Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic'  
worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite  
complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and  
specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get input from more than  
the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) influences  
may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what  
cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing  
machines.
Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's  
capability - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite  
complexity's' relations.


Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible  
for machines that work within such borders.


I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent  
readings, provided that I get to it back.



Thanks again, it w

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread John Mikes

Bruno,
examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of detailed
description what the universal machine consists of and how it functions
(maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive ID. Your "lot of
examples" rather denies that you have one. And:
'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them," it may not be enough for me. I
don't really know HOW conscious I am.

I like your  counter-point in competence and intelligence.
I identified the "wisdom" (maybe it should read: the intelligence) of the
oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known circumstances -
maybe it is competence.
To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as impediment
('blinded by').

John M

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to
>> D. Deutsch.
>> Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks
>> for copying.
>> It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
>> ramifications prima vista.
>> What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to
>> Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
>>
>> I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability
>> of reading 'inter'
>> lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize the
>> 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science' definitions.
>> Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
>> (although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
>> machine unidentified).
>>
>
>
> Unidentified?I give a lot of  examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me, and
> the octopus.
>
> In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to
> consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you.
> The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which
> case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as we are
> blinded by our competences).
>
> It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but I am
> not sure.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical limits of
>> information - the content of the actual "MODEL" of the world we live with
>> by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such
>> limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and
>> AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND.
>>
>> Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview)
>> are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND
>> our MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power. Accordingly we
>> MAY get input from more than the factual content of the MODEL. On such
>> (unspecified) influences may be our creativity based (anticipation of
>> Robert Rosen?) what cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best
>> computing machines.
>> Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's capability
>> - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite complexity's'
>> relations.
>>
>> Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible for
>> machines that work within such borders.
>>
>> I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent
>> readings, provided that I get to it back.
>>
>>
>> Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down
>>
>> John Mikes
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread meekerdb


On 10/9/2012 8:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to consider 
them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which case it might 
be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as we are blinded by our competences). 


At least they would be smart enough to have adopted base 8 numbering.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in
response to D. Deutsch.
Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no.
Thanks for copying.
It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
ramifications prima vista.
What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate
to Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.

I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the
capability of reading 'inter'
lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to
realize the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical
science' definitions.
Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
(although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
machine unidentified).

Unidentified?I give a lot of examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me,
and the octopus.

In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for
me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me,
and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in
which case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as
we are blinded by our competences).

It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but I
am not sure.

Bruno

Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical
limits of information - the content of the actual "MODEL" of the
world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology
can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may
be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do
not go BEYOND.

Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic'
worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite
complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and
specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get input from more than
the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) influences
may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what
cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing
machines.
Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's
capability - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite
complexity's' relations.

Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible
for machines that work within such borders.

I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent
readings, provided that I get to it back.

Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down

John Mikes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Mikes  

Intelligence is the ability to make decisions without outside help.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/9/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: John Mikes  
Receiver: yanniru  
Time: 2012-10-08, 16:07:09 
Subject: AGI 


Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to D. 
Deutsch.  
Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks for 
copying. 
It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with ramifications 
prima vista.  
What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to Ben (a 
longtime e-mail friend) as well.  
? 
I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability of 
reading 'inter'  
lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize the 
'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science' definitions.  
Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines (although 
Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (L?'s) universal machine 
unidentified). Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical 
limits of information - the content of the actual "MODEL" of the world we live 
with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such 
limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and AGI 
as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. 
? 
Human mind-capabilities, however,?(at least in my 'agnostic' worldview) are 
under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND our 
MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get 
input from more than the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) 
influences may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what 
cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing machines.  
Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's capability - not 
so even the input from?he unknowable 'infinite complexity's' relations.  
? 
Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible for 
machines that work within such borders.  
? 
I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent readings, 
provided that I get to it back.  
? 

Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down 
? 
John Mikes 
--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

Re: AGI

12 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information