Hello Benjamin & al. I'm reacting to the word 'birds' (semi-automatically :-) as I'm a fan of bird (or corvidae) intelligence. E.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455481 http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sabine_Tebbich/publication/241274123_Social_manipulation_causes_cooperation_in_keas/links/00b7d528aeb185cda5000000.pdf
Somehow their intelligence seems specialized in the time domain (planning, episodic memory, etc.). As for anatomical comparison, I found this article interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2507884/ Birds seem to have the pallium instead of the neo-cortex. I wonder if the Prefrontal Cortex Basal Ganglia Working Memory hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_Cortex_Basal_Ganglia_Working_Memory , which may explain temporal information processing of mammals to a certain extent, also applies to birds... -- Naoya Arakawa 2015-05-23 3:25, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking about birds today.. It seems as though they have high > selection pressure to have light weight brains. And as such only the most > essential parts of the brain would be retained through evolution. I wonder > if anatomical comparison between birds and other kinds of brains could shed > light on those aspects of the brain which are (and perhaps just as > importantly are not) absolutely critical for an AGI to have? Perhaps this > could help us prioritize which aspects of the mind we focus our efforts on > creating first? Thoughts? > > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> > wrote: > If Watson were front ended with a coherent Chatbot, then it would be the > equivalent of SAL in the movie "2010". > Right now most Chatbots are incoherent in that they don't maintain an > adequate model of the user(s) they interact > with, or an adequate conversation history. But if a chatbot were able to > retrieve information using a Watson API it > would be formidable. > > ~PM > > Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:57:59 -0400 > Subject: Re: [agi] H-AGI towards S-AGI > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > For AGI, I wonder how General AI has to be in order to be considered AGI. If > a AI system can only play chess we would say that is a bit too narrow to be > considered AGI. If it can play a bunch of Atari games then certainly this is > far more general than being designed to play a single game. Would this be > AGI? I don't think you can call something AGI based solely on its results > (number of games it can play), this is because i could wire together a bunch > of narrow AI's each specifically design for each of the games. For example i > could have one for playing chess, a different one for playing breakout, a > third for space invaders, and so on and so forth. Then i could have a system > that detects which game we are presented with and it could then select the > appropriate narrow AI to play the game. The system as a whole would appear > to be a general AI based on its results, but of course its essential nature > would be that of a narrow AI. As such you can't classify an AI system as AI > or AGI solely based on results. The implementation details are needed to > make the classification. > > Does this make sense? > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: > watson is as much or more AGI as OpenCOG applying same core to different > domains and getting good results for-example jeopardy, cooking and medicine. > > Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, very useful survey, excellent key points: > 1.Training on text based models does not generate AGI - IBM's Watson > 2.The essential part of the system that was creating AGI would be my brain, > not google > Conclusion: Wiring together a bunch of non AGI systems may never generate AGI > > Mike: "I don't like the way that people create things that are intentionally > difficult and known only to the in-group." > You are right, we should try to avoid anything that is too > specific/specialized (e.g biological engineering pluripotent cells and > related topics) it makes little sense in other fields > > 1. The paper should present our general vision, simple sentences easy to > understand in computer science or engineering > 2. The basic idea is simple - working on a "reduced model" of computation > (digital -Turing) may never lead to AGI > In addition to algorithms that can run on digital computers one can use > biological building blocks to build a "full model of computation". One can > shape and "program" a biological structure and "connected" it with digital > computers to develop human like intelligence. It will be the new tool for > discovery, far more powerful than any digital system alone. > 3. At least two phases are needed to construct "a mind" using biological > building blocks - see the two step implementation (A &B) they need to be > briefly mentioned. Details regarding other sub-steps in biological > engineering implementation should make the object of a more specialized paper > > At this point in time everyone can understand that we need to solve a > technological problem. Many academic labs are highly specialized and can be > our collaborators. They may have the knowledge however they do not have > enough resources and their main goal is not to pursue bigger technological > projects ( see similar projects- Manhattan Project -gov, German Rocket von > Braun's technology -gov, computer and iPhone Job's technology - private, > Venter's technology - private). > > > Why we may need political lobbying? They've strongly misled that our brain > can be thoroughly mapped and fully simulated on digital computers > > > Note: The two step implementation is just one way to approach the development > of H-AGI > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Mark Seveland <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a suggestion. Google+ Meetups are a good way for everyone to meet each > other, and in live voice and/or video chat discuss topics. > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dorian et. al., > I am having trouble getting time to properly participate here because of > family stuff and my other commitments. I'm checking in to acknowledge how > encouraging it is to see the activity is ongoing, and the birth of a possible > paper that might underpin whatever this IGI initiative turns into. > > I'd like to focus my efforts on the paper primarily as a way to discover IGI > directions. So if you could bear with a patchy contribution from me for a > little while it would be greatly appreciated. I have a particularly difficult > week ahead of me. There's no huge crashing need for speed here, so I'm hoping > slow and steady might be OK. > > Whatever form this website takes: fantastic. It may only ever be a 'line in > the sand'. But it's a significant one in the greater scheme of AGI futures > and really good to see after being sidelined for so long. Yay! > > cheers > Colin Hales > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > Why don't you just call it "AI" and if somebody asks THEN you can > clarify it? I mean, why be arcane about it? One of the reasons I got > into AI is because I don't like the way that people create things that > are intentionally difficult and known only to the in-group. Now here > you go with a boatload of new acronyms, known only to the select tiny > group that knows the secret meaning behind it. So, I guess I am > getting into Alan Grimes vent space with this. > > On 5/20/15, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Colin et al,* > > > > > > A possible plan for H-AGI towards S-AGI paper > > > > > > > > *Hybrid artificial general intelligent systems towards S-AGI* > > > > *Introduction* – a short presentation of AI systems and general goal to > > build human general intelligence > > > > Why H-AGI? > > > > - Present different forms of computation , ( particular forms of > > computation analog, digital -Turing machines ) > > - Computations in the brain (examples of computations that are hardly > > replicated on digital computers) > > - H-AGI can include all forms of computations, algorithmic / > > non-algorithmic, analog, digital,* quantum and classical *since > > biological structure is incorporated in the system > > > > *Steps to develop H-AGI* > > > > - A. Build the structure using either natural stem cells or induced > > pluripotent cells a three-dimensional vascularized structure, test 3D > > printing possibilities > > - Shape the structure and control spatial organization of cells > > - Detect the need of neurotrophic factors, nutrients and oxygen ...use > > nanosensor devices, carbon nanotubes... > > - Regulate, control the entire phenomenon using a computer interface, > > ability to use combine analog/digital and biophysical computations > > > > B. Train the hybrid system > > > > - Enhance bidirectional communication between biological structure and > > computers > > - Create and use a virtual world to provide accelerated training, use > > machine learning, DL, digital/algorithmic AI or AGI if something is > > developed on digital systems > > - The interactive training system should also shape the evolution of > > biological structure, natural language and visual information can be > > progressively included > > > > see details in Can we build a conscious machine, > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5224 > > > > > > *Goals of H-AGI* > > > > H-AGI can be seen as a transitional step required to understand which > > parts can be fully replicated in a synthetic form to build a more powerful > > system, > > > > · Natural language processing, robotics... > > > > · Space exploration, colonization..... etc > > > > · Techniques for therapy (brain diseases, cancer ....) since we will > > learn how to shape biological structure > > > > > > > > > > Dorian > > > > > > PS This brief presentation may also provide an idea about possible > > collaboration list 1- list 3 > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > A summary ....we are looking at the idea that there are 2 fundamental > >> kinds > >> > of putative AGI (1) & (3), and their hybrid (2) that forms a third > >> approach > >> > as follows: > >> > > >> > (1) C-AGI computer substrate only. Neuromorphic equivalents of it. > >> > (2) H-AGI hybrid of (1) and (3). The inorganic version is a new > >> > kind > >> > of neuromorphic chip. The organic version has ... erm... organics in > >> > it. > >> > (3) S-AGI synthetic AGI. organic or inorganic. Natural brain > >> > physics > >> > only. No computer. > >> > > >> > (aside: S-AGI just came out of my fingers. I hope this is OK, Dorian!) > >> > > >> > >> This is a cool idea, somewhat mind boggling in its possibilities. > >> Cool though! > >> > >> Personally I would favor something more like "EM-AGI" for > >> electromagnetic AGI. I mean, I don't understand the details of the > >> approach, only the generalities. But, "S" seems a bit vague/ambiguous > >> while EM hits it more or less on target IMHO. > >> > >> MIke A > >> > >> > >> > Think this way: What we have now is 100% computer. S-AGI is 100% > >> > natural > >> > physics (organic or inorganic). H-AGI is set somewhere in between. > >> > It's > >> > the level of computer computation/natural computation that is at issue. > >> All > >> > are computation. > >> > > >> > The human brain is a natural version of (3) with a neuronal/astrocyte > >> > substrate. (3) has no computer whatever in it. it retains all the > >> natural > >> > physics (whatever that is). H-AGI targets the inclusion of the > >> > essential > >> > natural brain physics in the substrate of (2) and to incorporate (1) > >> > computer-substrates and software to an extent to be determined. In my > >> case > >> > an H-AGI would be inorganic. Others see differently. > >> > > >> > Where you might have a stake in this? > >> > > >> > The history of AGI can be summed up as an experiment that seeks to see > >> > if > >> > the role of (1) C-AGI as a brain is fundamentally indistinguishable > >> > from > >> > (3) S-AGI under all conditions. That is the hypothesis. The 65 year old > >> bet > >> > that has attracted 100% of the investment to date. H-AGI does not make > >> that > >> > presupposition and seeks to contrast (1) and (3) in revealing ways that > >> > then allow us to speak authoritatively about the (1)/(3) relationship > >> > in > >> > AGI potential. Only then will we really understand the difference > >> > between > >> > (1) and (3). So far that difference is entirely and intuition. A good > >> one. > >> > But only intuition. Its time for that intuition to be turned into > >> science. > >> > Experiments in (1) have ruled to date. Now we seek to do some (2)... > >> > E.E. > >> > we have 65 years of 'control' subject. H-AGI builds the first 'test' > >> > subject. > >> > > >> > How about this? > >> > > >> > What would be super cool is if this mighty AGI beast you intend making > >> > could be turned into the brain of a robot. Then we could contrast what > >> > it > >> > does with what an IGI candidate brain does in an identical robot in the > >> > same test. That kind of testing vision (as far off as it may seem) is a > >> > potential way your work and the IGI might interface. Which candidate > >> robot > >> > best encounters radical novelty, without any human > >> intervention/involvement > >> > whatever? .... is a really good question. To do this test you'd not > >> > need > >> to > >> > reveal anything about its workings. Observed robot behaviour is > >> > decisive. > >> > > >> > It seems to me that whatever venture you plan, it might be wise to keep > >> an > >> > eye on any (2)/(3) approaches. IGI or not. Because it is directly > >> informing > >> > expectations of outcomes in (1). We are currently asking the question > >> "*If > >> > H-AGI were to be championed into existence, what would the first > >> > vehicle > >> > for that look like?*" If the enthusiasm maintains it will be sketched > >> into > >> > a web page and we'll see what it tells us and what to do next. It may > >> halt. > >> > It may go. I don't know. Worth a shot? You bet. > >> > > >> > With your (1) C-AGI glasses firmly strapped to your head, your wisdom > >> > at > >> > all stages in this would be well received, whatever the messages. So if > >> you > >> > have time to keep an eye on happenings, I for one would appreciate it. > >> > > >> > regards > >> > > >> > Colin Hales > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks for asking. Haven’t followed the IGI discussions. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Is this about non-computer based approaches to AGI? If so, I don’t > >> think > >> >> I have anything positive to contribute. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> More generally, non-profit orgs need strong focus and champions. And > >> >> specific goals. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> *From:* Benjamin Kapp [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:23 PM > >> >> *To:* AGI > >> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Institute of General Intelligence (IGI) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Mr. Voss, > >> >> > >> >> Given your understanding of the AGI community do you believe an IGI > >> would > >> >> be redundant? Would your organization be open to collaborating with > >> >> the > >> >> IGI? Do you have any advice for how we could be successful in > >> >> starting > >> >> up > >> >> this organization? Perhaps you would be open to being a member of the > >> >> board? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Not something that can be adequately covered in a few words, but…. > >> “We’re > >> >> building a fully integrated, top-down & bottom-up, real-time, adaptive > >> >> knowledge (& skill) representation, learning and reasoning engine. > >> >> We’re > >> >> using a combination of graph representation and NN techniques overlaid > >> >> with > >> >> fuzzy, adaptive rule systems” – ha! > >> >> > >> >> Here again are links for some clues: > >> >> > >> >> > >> http://www.kurzweilai.net/essentials-of-general-intelligence-the-direct-path-to-agi > >> >> > >> >> http://www.realagi.com/index.html > >> >> > >> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/RealAGI/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> *From:* Benjamin Kapp [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> > >> >> Mr. Voss, > >> >> > >> >> Since you are the founder I'm certain you know what agi-3's > >> >> methodology > >> >> is. In a few words (maybe more?) could you share with us what that > >> >> is? > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> *>*http://www.agi-3.com They just glue together anything and > >> everything > >> >> that works. > >> >> > >> >> Actually, no. We have a very specific theory of AGI and architecture > >> >> > >> >> *Peter Voss* > >> >> > >> >> *Founder, AGI Innovations Inc.* ------------------------------------------- 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
