J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 6, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
That's surely part of it ... but investors have put big $$ into much
LESS
mature projects in areas such as nanotech and quantum computing.
This is because nanotech and quantum computing can be readily and
easily
Samantha Atkins wrote:I have been in conferences of futurists no less where over 70% of the audience raises their hand that they would likely not avail themselves of immortality if it was immediately available!The conservative preservation of the known goes a lot deeper than we credit.That's
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Just my personal opinion...but it appears that the exponential technology
growth chart, which is used in many of the briefings, does not include
AI/AGI. It is processing centric. When you include AI/AGI the
Brain-scan accuracy is a very crude proxy for understanding of brain
function; yet a much better proxy than anything existing for the case
of AGI...
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
Just my personal opinion...but it
MI wrote:
...
Being able to abstract and then implement only those components and
mechanisms relevant to intelligence from all the data these better
brain scans provide?
If intelligence can be abstracted into layers (analogous to network
layers), establishing a set of performance indicators at
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Much of this discussion is very abstract, which is I guess how you think about
these issues when you don't have a specific AGI design in mind.
My view is a little different.
If the Novamente design is basically correct, there's no way it can possibly
take thousands or
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is
all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the
following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions
Mike Tintner wrote:
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that
is all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the
following is a reasonable *framework*
Mike:
I am a novice to this AGI business and so I am not being cute with the
following question: What, in your opinion, would be the first AGI problem to
tackle. Perhaps theses various problems can't be priority ordered but
nontheless, which problem stands out for you?. Thanks.
Mike,
Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved.
If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a problem of
AGI, and let us list them.
1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving
problem in, a new domain)
Samantha,
You know, I am getting pretty tired of hearing this poor mouth crap. This
is not that huge a sum to raise or get financed. Hell, there are some very
futuristic rich geeks who could finance this single-handed and would not
really care that much whether they could somehow monetize
I don't think any reasonable person in AI or AGI will claim any of these
have been solved. They may want to claim their method has promise, but not
that it has actually solved any of them.
Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious
researcher disagrees. So why
Ben Goertzel: Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No
serious researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point?
Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and it's
regrettable but it was either that or start taking blood pressure
Mike Tintner wrote:
Mike,
Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been
solved. If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a
problem of AGI, and let us list them.
1.General Problem Solving and Learning (independently learning/solving
problem in, a new
Derek Zahn wrote:
Ben Goertzel:
Yes -- it is true, we have not created a human-level AGI yet. No serious
researcher disagrees. So why is it worth repeating the point?
Long ago I put Tintner in my killfile -- he's the only one there, and
it's regrettable but it was either that or start
Ben:So why is it worth repeating the point?Similarly, up till the moment
when the first astronauts walked on the moon,
you could have run around yelping that no one has solved the problem of
how to make a person walk on the moon, all they've done is propose methods
that seem to have promise.
I
Mike Tintner wrote:
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If
that is all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest
the following is a reasonable *framework*
Hi Mike
Your 1 consists of two separate challenges: (1) reasoning (2) learning
IMHO your 3 to 6 can be classified under (3) pattern recognition. I think
perhaps even your 2 may flow out of pattern recognition.
Of course, the real challenge is to find an algorithmic way (or architecture)
to do
Jean-Paul,
More or less yes to your points. (I was only tossing off something quickly).
Actually I think there's a common core to 2)-7) and will be setting out
something about that soon. But I don't think it's recognizing patterns - on
the contrary, the common problem is partly that there
--- Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At any rate, if there were some clearly-specified tests that are not
AGI-complete and yet not easily attackable with straightforward software
engineering or Narrow AI techniques, that would be a huge boost in my
opinion to this field. I can't think of
Ben,
Good Afternoon. I am a rather new addition to the AGI mailing list and
just read your response concerning the future of AGI. I agree with you.
The funding is there. The belief that AGI is right around the corner is
not. From the people I talk withthey have read Kurzweil and
Hi,
Just my personal opinion...but it appears that the exponential technology
growth chart, which is used in many of the briefings, does not include
AI/AGI. It is processing centric. When you include AI/AGI the exponential
technology curve flattens out in the coming years (5-7) and becomes
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or
even
in a
single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate
all
Turing machines to find one that
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The simulations can't loop because the simulator needs at least as much
memory
as the machine being simulated.
You're making assumptions when you say that. Outside of a particular
simulation we
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you resolve disagreements?
This is a problem for all large databases and multiuser AI systems. In my
design, messages are identified by source (not necessarily a person) and a
timestamp. The network economy rewards those sources that provide
--- Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course what I imagine emerging from the Internet bears little
resemblance
to Novamente. It is simply too big to invest in directly, but it will
present
many opportunities.
But the emergence of superhuman AGI's like a Novamente may
, 2008 7:07 PM
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Perhaps the difficulty in finding investors in AGI is that among people
most
familiar with the technology (the people on this list and the AGI list),
everyone has a different idea on how to solve
John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at the state of internet based intelligence now, all the data
and its structure, the potential for chain reaction or a sort of structural
vacuum exists and it is accumulating a potential at an increasing rate.
IMO...
So you see the arrival of a
is the time
to take action, getting in early and gaining a foothold *wink*.
John
From: Eric B. Ramsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:03 AM
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI
John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look
--- Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at the state of internet based intelligence now, all the
data
and its structure, the potential for chain reaction or a sort of
structural
vacuum exists and it is accumulating a potential at an
Matt Mahoney writes: As for AGI research, I believe the most viable path is a
distributed architecture that uses the billions of human brains and computers
already on the Internet. What is needed is an infrastructure that routes
information to the right experts and an economy that rewards
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You won't see a singularity. As I explain in
http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html an intelligent agent (you)
is not capable of recognizing agents of significantly greater
intelligence. We don't know whether a singularity has already
--- Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney writes: As for AGI research, I believe the most viable
path is a distributed architecture that uses the billions of human
brains and computers already on the Internet. What is needed is an
infrastructure that routes information to the
Matt Mahoney writes: Super-google is nifty, but I don't see how it is AGI.
Because a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to
experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow domains
of expertise. All of this can be done with existing technology and a
There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or even
in a
single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate all
Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with intelligent
life.
What if that nest of simulations loop around somehow? What
Matt : a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to
experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow
domains of expertise.
And Santa will answer every child's request, and we'll all live happily ever
after. Amen.
Which are these areas of science,
Matt : a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to
experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow
domains of expertise.
Another interesting question here is: on how many occasions are the majority
of experts in any given field, wrong? I don't begin to
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or even
in a
single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate all
Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with intelligent
life.
What if
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt : a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to
experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow
domains of expertise.
And Santa will answer every child's request, and we'll all live happily ever
after.
If I understand what I have read in this thread so far, there is Ben on the one
hand suggesting $10 mil. with 10-30 people in 3 to 10 years and on the other
there is Matt saying $1quadrillion, using a billion brains in 30 years. I don't
believe I have ever seen such a divergence of opinion
Well, Matt and I are talking about building totally different kinds of
systems...
I believe the system he wants to build would cost a huge amount ...
but I don't think
it's the most interesting sorta thing to build ...
A decent analogue would be spaceships. All sorts of designs exist, some
--- Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I understand what I have read in this thread so far, there is Ben on the
one hand suggesting $10 mil. with 10-30 people in 3 to 10 years and on the
other there is Matt saying $1quadrillion, using a billion brains in 30
years. I don't believe I
Of course what I imagine emerging from the Internet bears little resemblance
to Novamente. It is simply too big to invest in directly, but it will
present
many opportunities.
But the emergence of superhuman AGI's like a Novamente may eventually become,
will both dramatically alter the
Sure, but Matt is also suggesting that his path is the most viable and so from
the point of view of an investor, he/she is faced with very divergent opinions
on the type of resources needed to get to the AGI expeditiously. It's far
easier to understand wide price swings in a spaceship to get
PROTECTED]
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 9:56:58 PM
Subject: Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
If I understand what I have read in this thread so far, there is Ben on the
one hand suggesting $10 mil. with 10-30 people in 3 to 10 years and on the
other
J.A.R. Like I stated at the beginning, *most* models are at least
theoretically valid.
1. VALID MODELS/IDEAS. I am not aware of ONE model that has one valid or
even interesting idea about how to produce general intelligence - how to
get an agent to independently learn, or solve problems in, a
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 6, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I wonder why some people think there is one true path to AGI ... I
strongly suspect there are many...
Like I stated at the beginning, *most* models are at least theoretically
valid. Of course, tractable engineering of
Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : singularity@v2.listbox.com
Envoyé le : Lundi, 7 Avril 2008, 16h26mn 01s
Objet : Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 6, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I wonder why some people think there is one true path to AGI ... I
strongly suspect
-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 7:07 PM
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Perhaps the difficulty in finding investors in AGI is that among people
most
familiar with the technology (the people on this list and the AGI
Arguably many of the problems of Vista including its legendary slippages
were the direct result of having thousands of merely human programmers
involved. That complex monkey interaction is enough to kill almost
anything interesting. shudder
- samantha
Panu Horsmalahti wrote:
Just because
Much of this discussion is very abstract, which is I guess how you think about
these issues when you don't have a specific AGI design in mind.
My view is a little different.
If the Novamente design is basically correct, there's no way it can possibly
take thousands or hundreds of programmers to
If the concept behind Novamente is truly compelling enough, it
should be no problem to make a successful pitch.
Eric B. Ramsay
Gee ... you mean, I could pitch the idea of funding Novamente to
people with money?? I never thought of that!! Thanks for the
advice ;-pp
Evidently, the concept
Eric B. Ramsay wrote:
If the Novamente design is able to produce an AGI with only 10-20
programmers in 3 to 10 years at a cost of under $10 million, then this
represents such a paltry expense to some companies (Google for example)
that it would seem to me that the thing to do is share the
On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Eric B. Ramsay wrote:
If the Novamente design is able to produce an AGI with only 10-20
programmers in 3 to 10 years at a cost of under $10 million, then
this represents such a paltry expense to some companies (Google for
example) that it would seem to me that
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben:
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that AGI today in 2008 is in the air
again after 50 years.
Yes
You are not trying to present a completely novel and
unheard of idea and with today's crowd of sophisticated
On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Part of the issue is that the concepts underlying NM are both
complex and subtle, not lending themselves all that well to
elevator pitch treatment ... or even PPT summary treatment
(though there are summaries in both PPT and conference-paper
On Apr 6, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
That's surely part of it ... but investors have put big $$ into much
LESS
mature projects in areas such as nanotech and quantum computing.
This is because nanotech and quantum computing can be readily and
easily packaged as straightforward
On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
What could be compelling about a project? (Novamente or any
other). Artificial Intelligence is not a field that rests on a firm
theoretical basis, because there is no science that says this
design should produce an intelligent machine
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
What could be compelling about a project? (Novamente or any other).
Artificial Intelligence is not a field that rests on a firm
theoretical basis, because there is no science that says this design
should produce an
On Apr 6, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Artificial Intelligence research does not have a credible science
behind it. There is no clear definition of what intelligence is,
there is only the living example of the human mind that tells us
that some things are intelligent.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to why sympathetic rich people are
apparently not willing to toss this consideration aside, it doesn't make
much sense to me unless they simply don't think specific approaches are
feasible -- although there's also a
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 6, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Artificial Intelligence research does not have a credible science
behind it. There is no clear definition of what intelligence is,
there is only the living example of the human mind that tells us that
some things
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think an investor would want a believable specific answer to the
following question:
When and how will I get my money back?
It can be uncertain (risk is part of the game), but you can't just wave
your hands
On Apr 6, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
The fact that the vast majority of AGI theory is pulled out of /dev/
ass notwithstanding, your above characterization would appear to
reflect your limitations which you have chosen to project onto the
broader
Funny dispute ... is AGI about mathematics or science
I would guess there are some approaches to AGI that are only minimally
mathematical in their design concepts (though of course math could be
used to explain their behavior)
Then there are some approaches, like Novamente, that mix mathematics
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Funny dispute ... is AGI about mathematics or science
I would guess there are some approaches to AGI that are only minimally
mathematical in their design concepts (though of course math could be
used to explain their behavior)
Then there are some approaches, like Novamente,
On Apr 6, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The problem is that investors are generally pretty unwilling to eat
perceived
technology risk. Exceptions arise all the time, and AGI has not yet
been one.
There have been exceptions, just ill-advised ones. :-)
But yes, most investors
On Apr 6, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I wonder why some people think there is one true path to AGI ... I
strongly suspect there are many...
Like I stated at the beginning, *most* models are at least
theoretically valid. Of course, tractable engineering of said models
is
The payoff on AGI justifies investment. The problem is that the probability
of success is in question. But spinoff technologies developed along the way
could have value.
I think though that particular proof of concepts may not need more than a
few people. Putting it all together would require
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:48 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think though that particular proof of concepts may not need more than a
few people. Putting it all together would require more than a few. Then the
resources needed to make it interact with various systems in the world
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:48 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think though that particular proof of concepts may not need more
than a
few people. Putting it all together would require more than a few.
Then the
resources needed
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Eric B. Ramsay wrote:
It took Microsoft over 1000 engineers, $6 Billion and several years to make
Vista. Will building an AGI be any less formidable? If the AGI effort is
comparable, how can the relatively small efforts of Ben (comparatively
speaking) and
On 3/16/08, Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It took Microsoft over 1000 engineers, $6 Billion and several years to
make Vista. Will building an AGI be any less formidable? If the AGI effort
is comparable, how can the relatively small efforts of Ben (comparatively
speaking) and others
On 3/16/08, Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two guys in a garage would never have built the bomb. The question is
whether or not the two efforts are indeed comparable.
Eric B. Ramsay
You're right that software engineering is more amenable to startups than
other kinds of work, but
Just because it takes thousands of programmers to create something as
complex as Vista, does *not* mean that thousands of programmers are required
to build an AGI, since one property of AGI is/can be that it will learn most
of its complexity using algorithms programmed into it.
On Mar 16, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Eric B. Ramsay wrote:
It took Microsoft over 1000 engineers, $6 Billion and several years
to make Vista. Will building an AGI be any less formidable? If the
AGI effort is comparable, how can the relatively small efforts of
Ben (comparatively speaking) and
Lol. Calm down fella. You are going to give yourself a stroke.
Eric B. Ramsay
J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Few people would define the developments task as hiring hundreds of
engineers to do things like write device drivers and apps for
defective Chinese silicon so that little
Hi Matt,
Great topic here.
Remember, the Manhattan Project didn't come about until everyone believed a
global catastrophe was afoot. That kind of mentality seems to help bring
people together to make amazing stuff, in that case explosive stuff. As
narrow AI and robotics become more ubiquitous,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have to be careful with the phrase 'Manhattan-style project'.
You are right.
On previous occasions when this subject has come up I, at least, have
referred to the idea as an Apollo Project, not a Manhattan Project.
Richard Loosemore
That was a military
79 matches
Mail list logo
