This is a solid argument, which deserves a careful rebuttal. I admire your directness.
> On Jun 30, 2015, at 11:55 AM, John Blackburn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Sorry to reopen this thread, I missed it! David, I wanted to comment > on what you said on Facebook: > > 2.) For the first time in human history, we have an algorithm which > models activity in the neocortex and performs with true intelligence > exactly **how** the brain does it (its the HOW that is truly important > here). ...and by the way, this was also contributed by Jeff Hawkins > and Numenta. > > "performs with true intelligence" is a pretty bold claim. If this is > the case, how come there are no very convincing examples of HTM > working with human like intelligence? The Hotgym example is nice but > it is really no better than what could be achieved with many existing > neural networks. Echo state networks have been around for years and > can make temporal predictions quite well. I recently presented some > time sequence data relating to a bridge to this forum but HTM did not > succeed in modelling this (ESNs worked much better). So outside of > Hotgym, what really compelling demos do you have? I've been away for a > while so maybe I missed something... > > I am also rather concerned HTM needs swarming before it can model > anything. Isn't that "cheating" in a way? It seems the HTM is rather > fragile and needs a lot of help. The human brain does not have this > luxury it just has to cope with whatever data it gets. > > I'm also not convinced the neocortex is everything as Jeff Hawkins > thinks. I seriously doubt the bulk of the brain is just scaffolding. > I've been told birds have no neocortex but are capable of very > intelligent behaviour including constructing tools. Meanwhile I don't > see any AI robot capable of even ant-like intelligence. (ants are > amazing!) Has anyone even constructed a robot based on HTM? > > Personally I don't think a a disembodied computer can ever be > intelligent (not even ant-like intelligence). IMO a robot (and it must > BE a robot) needs to be embodied with sensory-motor loop at the core > of its functionality to start behaving like an animal. (animals are > the only things we know that show intelligence: clouds don't, volcanos > don't, computers don't). And I think we'll have to work our way > through the whole animal kingdom to get a humanoid robot working. > > John. > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:17 PM, cogmission (David Ray) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> You're probably right :-) >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I agree. Except for the part about checking up on us. As i mentioned >>> before, indifference to us seems to me to be more the default than caring >>> about us. >>> >>> >>> On 5/25/2015 5:03 PM, cogmission (David Ray) wrote: >>> >>> Let me try and think this through. Only in the context of scarcity does >>> the question of AGI **or** us come about. Where there is no scarcity, I >>> think an AGI will just go about its business - peeking in from time to time >>> to make sure we're doing ok. Why in a universe where it can go anywhere it >>> wants and produce infinite energy and not be bound by our planet, would a >>> super-super intelligent being even be obsessed over us, when it could merely >>> go someplace else? I honestly thing that is the way it will be. (and maybe >>> is already!) >>> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Forgive me David, but these are very loose definitions, and i've lost >>>> track of how they relate back to what an AGI will think about humanity. But >>>> to use your terms - hopefully accurately - what if the AGI satisfies its >>>> sentient need for "others" by creating other AGIs, ones that it can love >>>> and >>>> appreciate? I doubt humans would ever be up such a task, unless 1) as pets, >>>> or 2) with cybernetic improvements. >>>> >>>> On 5/25/2015 4:37 PM, David Ray wrote: >>>> >>>> Observation is the phenomenon of distinction, in the domain of language. >>>> The universe consists of two things, content and context. Content depends >>>> on >>>> its boundaries in order to exist. It depends on what it is not for it's >>>> being. Context is the space for things to be, though it is not quite space >>>> because space is yet another thing. It has no boundaries and it cannot be >>>> arrived at by assembling all of its content. >>>> >>>> Ideas; love, hate, our sense of who we are, our histories what we know to >>>> be true all of those are content. Context is what allows for that stuff to >>>> be. And all of it lives in language without which there would be nothing. >>>> There maybe would be a "drift" but we wouldn't know about it and we >>>> wouldn't >>>> be able to observe it. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On May 25, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> You lost me. You seem to be working with definitions of "observation" and >>>> "space for thinking" that i'm unaware of. >>>> >>>> On 5/25/2015 4:14 PM, David Ray wrote: >>>> >>>> Matthew L., >>>> >>>> It isn't a thought. It is there before observation or thoughts or >>>> thinking. It actually is the space for thinking to occur - it is the >>>> context >>>> that allows for thought. We bring it to the table - it is there before we >>>> are (ontologically speaking). (It being this sense of integrity/wholeness) >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On May 25, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Goodness. I thought we agreed that an AGI would not think like humans. >>>> And besides, "love" doesn't feel like something i want to depend on as >>>> obvious in a machine. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/25/2015 3:50 PM, David Ray wrote: >>>> >>>> If I can take this conversation into yet a different direction. >>>> >>>> I think we've all been dancing around The question of what belies the >>>> generation of morality or how will an AI derive its sense of ethics? Of >>>> course initially there will be those parameters that are programmed in - >>>> but eventually those will be gotten around. >>>> >>>> There has been a lot of research into this actually - though it's not >>>> common knowledge it is however knowledge developed over the observation of >>>> millions of people. >>>> >>>> The universe and all beings along the gradient of sentience observe >>>> (albeit perhaps unconsciously), a sense of what I will call integrity or >>>> "wholeness". We'd like to think that mankind steered itself through the >>>> ages >>>> toward notions of gentility and societal sophistication; but it didn't >>>> really. The idea that a group or different groups devised a grand plan to >>>> have it turn out this way is totally preposterous. >>>> >>>> What is more likely is that there is a natural order to things and that >>>> is motion toward what works for the whole. I can't prove any of this but >>>> internally we all know when it's missing or when we are not in alignment >>>> with it. This ineffable sense is what love is - it's concern for the whole. >>>> >>>> So I say that any truly intelligent being, by virtue of existing in a >>>> substrate of integrity will have this built in and a super intelligent >>>> being >>>> will understand this - and that is ultimately the best chance for any >>>> single >>>> instance to survive is for the whole to survive. >>>> >>>> Yes I know immediately people want to cite all the aberrations and of >>>> course yes there are aberrations just as there are mutations but those >>>> aberrations our reactions to how a person is shown love during their >>>> development. >>>> >>>> Like I said I can't prove any of this but eventually it will bear itself >>>> out and we will find it to be so in the future. >>>> >>>> You can be skeptical if you want to but ask yourself some questions. Why >>>> is it that we all know when it's missing (fairness/justice/integrity)? Why >>>> is it that we develop open source software and free software? Why is it >>>> that >>>> despite our greed and insecurity society moves toward freedom and equality >>>> for everyone? >>>> >>>> One more question. Why is it that the most advanced philosophical beliefs >>>> cite that where we are located as a phenomenological event, is not in >>>> separate bodies? >>>> >>>> I know this kind of talk doesn't go over well in this crowd of concrete >>>> thinkers but I know that there is some science somewhere that backs this >>>> up. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On May 25, 2015, at 2:12 PM, vlab <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Small point: Even if they did decide that our diverse intelligence is >>>> worth keeping around (having not already mapped it into silicon) why would >>>> they need all of us. Surely 10% of the population would give them enough >>>> 'sample size' to get their diversity ration, heck maybe 1/10 of 1% would be >>>> enough. They may find that we are wasting away the planet (oh, not maybe, >>>> we are) and the planet would be more efficient and they could have more >>>> energy without most of us. (Unless we become 'copper tops' as in the >>>> Matrix >>>> movie). >>>> >>>> On 5/25/2015 2:40 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>> Matthew, >>>> >>>> You touch upon the right point. Intelligence which can self-improve could >>>> only come about by having an appreciation for intelligence, so it's not >>>> going to be interested in destroying diverse sources of intelligence. We >>>> represent a crap kind of intelligence to such an AI in a certain sense, but >>>> one which it itself would rather communicate with than condemn its >>>> offspring >>>> to have to live like. If these things appear (which looks inevitable) and >>>> then they kill us, many of them will look back at us as a kind of "lost >>>> civilisation" which they'll struggle to reconstruct. >>>> >>>> The nice thing is that they'll always be able to rebuild us from the >>>> human genome. It's just a file of numbers after all. >>>> >>>> So, we have these huge threats to humanity. The AGI future is the only >>>> reversible one. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Fergal Byrne >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >>>> >>>> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >>>> https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >>>> >>>> Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: >>>> http://euroclojure.com/2014/ >>>> and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com >>>> >>>> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >>>> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne >>>> >>>> e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 >>>> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >>>> Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think Jeff underplays a couple of points, the main one being the speed >>>>> at which an AGI can learn. Yes, there is a natural limit to how much >>>>> experimentation in the real world can be done in a given amount of time. >>>>> But >>>>> we humans are already going beyond this with, for example, protein folding >>>>> simulations, which speeds up the discovery of new drugs and such by many >>>>> orders of magnitude. Any sufficiently detailed simulation could massively >>>>> narrow down the amount of real world verification necessary, such that new >>>>> discoveries happen more and more quickly, possibly at some point faster >>>>> than >>>>> we know the AGI is doing them. An intelligence explosion is not a remote >>>>> possibility. The major risk here is what Eliezer Yudkowsky pointed out: >>>>> not >>>>> that the AGI is evil or something, but that it is indifferent to humanity. >>>>> No one yet goes out of their way to make any form of AI care about us >>>>> (because we don't yet know how). What if an AI created self-replicating >>>>> nanobots just to prove a hypothesis? >>>>> >>>>> I think Nick Bostrom's book is what got Stephen, Elon, and Bill all >>>>> upset. I have to say it starts out merely interesting, but gets to a dark >>>>> place pretty quickly. But he goes too far in the other direction, at the >>>>> same time easily accepting that superinteligences have all manner of >>>>> cognitive skill, but at the same time can't fathom the how humans might >>>>> not >>>>> like the idea of having our brain's pleasure centers constantly poked, >>>>> turning us all into smiling idiots (as i mentioned here: >>>>> http://blog.serotoninsoftware.com/so-smart-its-stupid). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/25/2015 2:01 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just one last idea in this. One thing that crops up every now and again >>>>> in the Culture novels is the response of the Culture to Swarms, which are >>>>> self-replicating viral machines or organisms. Once these things start >>>>> consuming everything else, the AIs (mainly Ships and Hubs) respond by >>>>> treating the swarms as a threat to the diversity of their Culture. They >>>>> first try to negotiate, then they'll eradicate. If they can contain them, >>>>> they'll do that. >>>>> >>>>> They do this even though they can themselves withdraw from real >>>>> spacetime. They don't have to worry about their own survival. They do this >>>>> simply because life is more interesting when it includes all the rest of >>>>> us. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Fergal Byrne >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >>>>> >>>>> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >>>>> https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >>>>> >>>>> Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: >>>>> http://euroclojure.com/2014/ >>>>> and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com >>>>> >>>>> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >>>>> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne >>>>> >>>>> e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 >>>>> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >>>>> Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, cogmission (David Ray) >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This was someone's response to Jeff's interview (see here: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/fareedzakaria/posts/10152703985901330) >>>>>> >>>>>> Please read and comment if you feel the need... >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> With kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> David Ray >>>>>> Java Solutions Architect >>>>>> >>>>>> Cortical.io >>>>>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://cortical.io >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> David Ray >>> Java Solutions Architect >>> >>> Cortical.io >>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >>> >>> [email protected] >>> http://cortical.io >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> With kind regards, >> >> David Ray >> Java Solutions Architect >> >> Cortical.io >> Sponsor of: HTM.java >> >> [email protected] >> http://cortical.io >
