I see. Apologies that I have not read all of the posts in the last week in detail; I have just picked up the general train of thought. The designation NC makes it sounds like completely eschewing computing. But, I get your point above. By the way, I have read substantial parts of both your book and Dorian's. I like the idea. I'm not a nattering nabob of AI negativity. Certainly, though, the quest for strong/general AI should probably be an integrative one, if history is to be observed. Mike A
On 5/16/15, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > Yes of course! It'd be crazy not to computer-the-heck out of everything > possible. It will be hybrid. I never expected it to be entirely one or the > other. > > All I am trying to do is make sure that the right mix is used. To do that > you first create something arguably non-optional as NC-AGI and then contrast > it with the computer C-AGI version. Scientific testing. > > The IGI, as I see it, is exploring the boundary between the two. That > boundary is currently a feral accident of history set to 'NC-AGI = None' by > nobody. > > Please. Anyone out there that thinks I see no computers in AGI... that is > not the case! Maybe I should have said this. > > Example. I see computer DL datamining C-AGI added/integrated into the NC-AGI > as an entirely new perceptual mode, not as the AGI itself. Like touch is to > us. But not till we sort out the NC-AGI bits scientifically. > > So yeah ... The synergy of both halves is deep. Mandatory. This is not a > two-camp division. That is why I suggested the best physical place for it is > alongside/inside an existing C-AGI effort. Put them close and you get good > critical argument. Good science. > > For the record: > 1) My particular ideas about particular NC-AGI bits is irrelevant. Ignore > me. I don't care. I will fight tooth and claw for the concept, not merely > the Colin Hales version. I don't care which is right or even that I am > involved (although that would be so cool). I care that the NC-AGI concept is > (re-)born. > 2) I think it will be hybrid in the end. > 3) to find the set point for the mix you have start from the 100% NC-AGI end > and ramp up. Currently we are permanently set to 100% C-AGI by accident and > don't realize it. > > That's how I always saw it. > > Regards > > Colin Hales > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Mike Archbold" <[email protected]> > Sent: 17/05/2015 9:54 AM > To: "AGI" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Institute of General Intelligence (IGI) > > Colin, that is interesting to say you think that long term a hybrid > approach might be successful. I think one thing to keep in mind at > this juncture is the history of AI, which is a history of people > splitting up into separate camps. One of the perennial criticisms > about AI cited as grounds for its supposed failure is that it started > out with a kind of single effort at Dartmouth, but then split off into > camps, most of which never really saw the other as important any > longer. So, if there is a lesson in that, it is to not isolate IF > general intelligence is the intent. Mike A > > On 5/16/15, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry about the previous empty. Phone issue. 10 thumbs. >> >> My particular flavour of the non-computer approach is irrelevant. I am >> not >> pushing my own at all. >> >> Robot $ and kind irrelevant. I have the math you speak of. Wrong on both >> counts. >> >> I do not care what kind of NC-AGI arises. All I know is that NC-AGI >> important, neglected and needs a champion. Even if I am not involved at >> the >> coal face I will fight for its existence. I do not care who does it or >> what >> kind is the right one. I have my EM field version. Dorian has >> neuroelectrodynamics. Person X may have something else. Bring it on. >> Any/all. >> >> My long term expectation is that real AGI will be a hybrid of both. All I >> want to do is help see the NC half happens and to foster an appropriate >> research environment. >> >> So please set anything you think you know about me or my approach aside. >> You >> actually know almost nothing and what little that is is irrelevant to >> what >> is happening in this thread. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Colin Hales >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Steve Richfield" <[email protected]> >> Sent: 17/05/2015 9:10 AM >> To: "AGI" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Institute of General Intelligence (IGI) >> >> Colin, >> >> >> I think your are needlessly introducing your own unique world view into >> this, which will probably doom it to failure. Right now it seems clear to >> me >> what the two present stumbling blocks are to AGI progress: >> >> >> 1. The lack of an affordable robotic body to use as a test platform, >> that >> EVERYONE on this list could easily save up their lunch money and buy. >> >> >> 2. The lack of a guiding mathematical basis on which to leverage wet lab >> research AND your approach AND present AGI efforts. >> >> >> Without these, your approach seems to be doomed. >> >> >> Steve >> =============== >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My analysis of the potential for the IGI is continuing. I have thought >> about board structure, but that is secondary just now. The main point I >> want to make here is how I would see such a thing operate. >> >> >> The future of AGI has two main threads to it: >> >> >> 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) >> 2) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) >> >> >> The IGI will be the first place ever that does NC-AGI. C-AGI has had 100% >> of >> all investment and over half a century of activity. This imbalance has >> to >> stop for the good of the entire AGI program. >> >> >> So the idea is that NC-AGI, which was always a possibility and is now >> more >> possible than ever, joins C-AGI as a way towards real AGI, however it >> turns >> out. I cannot and will not discuss the technical conceptuals contrasting >> C-AGI and NC-AGI. It will be the job of the IGI to articulate that. This >> thread is actually about the formation of an institute that might do it. >> >> >> I offer the following suggestion for the scope of the IGI: >> >> >> 1) The IGI does actual research and development of NC-AGI. The technical >> mission is to make new kinds of neuromorphic chips that do model-free >> AGI, >> put them as brains in robots and make a new ecology of NC-AGI-based robot >> critters from insect to H+ level. >> 2) The IGI establishes a double-blind independent AGI test facility that >> _all_ embodied (robotic) AGI solutions, C-AGI and NC-AGI, can use to >> formally test candidates. This has nothing whatever to do with Turing >> tests. >> It will design the test regime and develop and test the tests. >> 3) The IGI can set about isolating and instigating the practical legal, >> social and regulatory mechanisms to do with having a machine ecology join >> (or not) the natural ecology. >> ========= >> As such, it would be ideal if the IGI could be co-located with a C-AGI >> institute. The two approaches, side-by side, could then work together in >> 2) >> and 3). With a board that can see the merit in such an institute, and >> the >> right researchers within it, this could be a serious contender for real >> AGI. >> At the very least it would correct an imbalance to AGI that has been in >> place for decades. It will champion and give a voice to NC-AGI. >> >> Currently there are, as far as I can tell, two and only two researchers >> in >> the entire world who can envisage some kind of NC-AGI. >> >> >> Dr Dorian Aur (Ca, USA) >> Dr Colin Hales.(Melbourne, Australia) >> >> >> If anyone knows anyone else that might see this potential then I would >> like >> to be put in touch with them. >> >> That's all I wanted to say at this stage. If I were to be part of this >> initiative, then these are my thoughts. I remain enthusiastic about this >> potential. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Colin Hales. >> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >> six >> hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full >> employment. >> >> >> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-20a65d4a > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
