Thanks for the references Rob. I'll be sure to pay the links a proper visit. Yes, De Bono was on every consultant's lips for a while.
Not corporate, but in specialist operational training for the military. This included doctrine, drills, deployment and R&D in counter-insurgency warfare. I appreciate your views on quantum bastardization. In my case, I continually test my work against comparative, industry-standard frameworks and "methodologies". Not many SSMs around though. I'm also taking your point about technical AGI specifics on board. My contention is that via my method the MMI for knowledge engineering has been completed and extensively tested in the field for more than 10 years, on commercisl projects in the public and private sectors. It think it's ready for automation. This is where the gifted developers would feature. This state of completion should then settle ongoing disputes around ambiguity, nestedness, hierarchy, and so forth. I'm not claiming perfection, but the work's been done, and well done. I've been extracting heuristics and axioms from the resultant BOK. One such being a 6x6 matrix for probability-based, holistic-systems specification. I think it's Cox that'll tell us that this feature would satisfy the definition for the method being a quantum-enabled system. Why carry on reinventing the wheel because it wasn't invented in one's backyard? In general, I just find such reasoning suboptimal. My SSM's approach is dedicated to any system specification being mostly driven by core systems, as an inside-out (atomic) focus. That's the closest to the standard model we can probably get. The quest for including functionality for entanglement and quantum gravity is now on. My hypothesis is that the Po1 equation would hold the key to evolutionary functionality. I refer to this mechanism as the triple-alpha1 process. Could such a system generate its own light energy? Theoretically, yes. AGI would be energy self generative. The fractal specification method embraces quantum coherence. Thus, normalizing components as pure, polymorphic objects. Further, being inherently driven by meaningfulness, in the sense of emergence (outcomes management). Last, satisfying a clinical requirement in providing 1-step mutation functionality. This translates into tracable knowledge mutation (as evolutionary systems mimicking NDA). I've been investigating if the matured diagrams could be converted into rich knowledge graphs. Given the method and output in adherence to IEEE compliance, I see no reason why this cannot be done. I see a fit. The resultant structure of systems information is standardized in a common, symbolic language, context dependent, content independent, robust, and scalable. I'm more purist epistomologist today than bandwagoneer. Hence, I still integrate the new with the existing. I imagine my methodology as a proper reasoning and decision-making engine within a version of AGI. Perhaps, in the role of a co-enabler of human2machine consciousness. Those algorithms are doable (credit to Penrose and Hamaroff). The prof mentor/friend and I have been integrating (theoretically) my method with KIM, their statistical knowledge engine. That introduces the 4x4 PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) matrix. These are but components for functional AGI. We have no plan to actually bring an AGI version to "life" yet, which places me outside the general competitor ring and fully independent. No doubt though, we're busy designing an AGI version, independently of each other. A few white papers (with definitions and references), and research results of mine (using the diagramming "blocks, and arrows" method - aka "Essence") and supporting industry-integrated architectural frameworks can be viewed/downloaded on Researchgate. Might be worth a quick browse? Happy to engage in further discussions, without divulging deeper algorithms. The main search string would be: Robert Benjamin and tacit knowledge engineering Good chat! On Sat, May 11, 2024, 09:39 Rob Freeman <chaotic.langu...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the corporate training domain, you must have come across Edward de > Bono? I recall he also focuses on discontinuous change and novelty. > > Certainly I would say there is broad scope for the application of, > broadly quantum flavoured, AI based insights about meaning in broader > society. Not just project management. But not knowing how your > "Essence" works, I can't comment how much that coincides with what I > see. > > There's a lot of woo woo which surrounds quantum, so I try to use > analogies sparingly. But for ways to present it, you might look at Bob > Coecke's books. I believe he has invented a whole visual, > diagrammatic, system for talking about quantum systems. He is proud of > having used it to teach high school students. The best reference for > that might be his book "Picturing Quantum Processes". > > Thanks for your interest in reading more about the solutions I see. I > guess I've been lazy in not putting out more formal presentations. > Most of what I have written has been fairly technical, and directed at > language modeling. > > The best non-technical summary might be an essay I posted on substack, end > '22: > > https://robertjohnfreeman.substack.com/p/essay-response-to-question-which > > That touches briefly on the broader social implications of subjective > truth, and how a subjective truth which is emergent of objective > structural principles, might provide a new objective social consensus. > > On quantum indeterminacy emerging from the complexity of combinations > of perfectly classical and observable elements, I tried to present > myself in contrast to Bob Coecke's top-down quantum grammar approach, > on the Entangled Things podcast: > > https://www.entangledthings.com/entangled-things-rob-freeman > > You could look at my Facebook group, Oscillating Networks for AI. > Check out my Twitter, @rob_freeman. > > Technically, the best summary is probably still my AGI-21 > presentation. Here's the workshop version of that, with discussion at > the end: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiVet-b-NM8 > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 9:18 PM Quan Tesla <quantes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Rob. > > > > Thank you for being candid. My verbage isn't deliberate. I don't seek > traction, or funding for what I do. There's no real justification for your > mistrust. > > > > Perhaps, let me provide some professional background instead. As an > independent researcher, I follow scientific developments among multiple > domains, seeking coherence and sense-making for my own scientific endeavor, > spanning 25 years. AGI has been a keen interest of mine since 2013. For > AGI, I advocate pure machine consciousness, shying away from biotech > approaches. > > > > My field of research interest stems from a previous career in > cross-cultural training, and the many challenges it presented in the 80's. > As designer/administrator/manager and trainer, one could say I fell in love > with optimal learning methodologies and associated technologies. > > > > Changing careers, I started in mainframe operating to advance to > programming, systems analysis and design, information and business > engineering and ultimately contracting consultant. My one, consistent > research area remained knowledge engineering, especialky tacit-knowledge > engineering. Today, I promote the idea for a campus specializing in quantum > systems engineering. I'm generally regarded as being a pracademic of sorts. > > > > Like many of us practitioners here, I too was fortunate to learn with a > number of founders and world-class methodologists. > > > > In 1998, my job in banking was researcher/architect to the board of a > 5-bank merger, today part of the Barclays Group. As futurist architect and > peer reviewer, I was introduced to quantum physics. Specifically, in > context of the discovery of the quark. > > > > I realized that future, exponential complexity was approaching, > especially for knowledge organizations. I researched possible solutions > worldwide, but found none at that time, which concerned me deeply. > > > > Industries seemed to be rushing into the digital revolution without a > rekiable, methodological management foundation in place. As architect, I > had nothing to offer as a useful, 10-year futures outlook either. I didn't > feel competent to be the person to address that apparent gap. > > > > A good colleague of mine was a proven IE methodologist and consultant to > IBM Head Office. I approached him twice with my concerns, asking him to > adapt his proven IE methodogy to address the advancing future. He didn't > take my concerns seriously at all. > > > > For the next year, the future seemed ever-more clearer to me, yet I > couldn't find anyone to develop a future aid for enterprises as a roadmap > toolkit, or a coping mechanism for a complex-adaptive reality. The world > was hung up on UML and Object oriented technologies. > > > > In desperation, I decided how, even though I probably was less suitable > for the job, to develop the future toolkit I had the vision of. > > > > That start was 25 years ago. Today, I have a field tested, hand > methodology, which if I had to give it a name, I'd call it: "Essence". > > > > As new science emerges, I update it with relevant algorithms and look > for a pro-bono project of sufficient complexity to test it on. E.g., I > focused on establishing a predictable baseline for rhe covid19 experience. > > > > Furthermore, during the last 18 months, I assisted a visiobary in > Cleveland with converting his holistic, 4D diagrammatical representation > into mature, system models. Presently, he's still working on his lexicon. > That was in support of their community based, Cleveland inner-city > rejuvenation project. > > > > During that test, I added vector specification to the quantum-enabled > systems engineering method. That addition now offers deabstraction > management to X dimensions. > > > > My research continues, my intent being to marry my methodolody with > Feynman diagrams and Haramein's latest unified field theory. My modest > contributions have been published independently, but as publications are, > my public-domain knowledge dates back to 10 years ago. Old stuff. > > > > I do protect my personal IP. The investment was considerable. E g., for > the past 10 years I've been actively involved with informal, applied > learning with a retired prof at NCSU. > > > > We grok the latest thinking and advances. In this manner, I discovered a > new pattern in nature, which we called the Po1 (the pattern of oneness). > > > > This is a fractal-of-fractals pattern, which potentially holds great > promise for future society, inasmuch as helping to extract energy and > matter from space and distributing it around the globe, spacecraft, and > other planets. > > > > Unfortunately, it also holds great promise for warcraft, which I'm > personally not interested in. This view has frustrated progress, as I > refuse to be drawn into speculations about neutron bombs. > > > > As such, I don't discuss details of the Po1, or even write them down. > I've even "brain encrypted" them against remote viewing. > > > > IMO, when I see the frustration on this group by supersmart, > exceptionally-talented, yet stubborn and sometimes short-sighted > individuals, I sometimes feel compelled to try and provide a nudge. Even > Ben can do with it. We all could. After all, we're scientists first, ever > learning and coming to some truth of matters. > > > > One key area I nudged was CAS object association. I resolved this > challenge years ago in my soft-systems method and it works beautifully. So, > I attempted to provide a pointer, or two. No big deal. > > > > The notion of symmetry from asymmetry, I'm stil learning about. However, > Ben has been consistently correct, IMO, about one thing. > > > > AGI has to be developed as recombinatory emergence of the vector energy > inherent in the outcomes of classical and quantum physics. Sorry Mr. Reich, > more big words. Here, I'm using every term as it is currently understood by > science. > > > > What seems to be a key problem in developing AGI then? > > > > I think it is lack of a holistic, quantum-engineering methodology. It's > all a scramble to retrofit code to energing, scientific reality and not > about jumping the curve. > > > > Your "language" models, which would represent hard and soft knowledge > artifacts, perhaps to abstract (optimize) in a symbolic schema of choice, > thereafter to encrypt with x-bit encryption, requires a methodology such as > mine. You.may have your own, off course. > > > > For socialized AGI, we'll need to combine disparate, discrete, > core-research. One researcher cannot cover all the bases. I'm aware of this. > > > > However, the reality of IP-misappropriation and outright theft has put > the brakes on collective, altruistic collaboration. Too many PhDs, or > startups in the wings. > > > > Why do the research if it could simply be scanned from public documents? > Here, I'd like to take a dig at IBM Boulder for misappropriating some of my > IP directly and selling it as their own in their Architect 2010 product. It > remains my bugbear. > > > > Perhaps, a significant donation to the industry then, and in my case as > pro Westerner (no offense to the other wind directions), publicly to > benefit Western interests first. > > > > These are bottom-line matters. How many volunteers do we see raising > hands to donate a useful component to Western AGI? Have to level the > playing field here, somehow. > > > > Where can I go read about your research and outputs Rob? I'd like to > understand your specialization a little better. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Teaac2c1a9c4f4ce3-M15a119cf4daceda78db8186c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
