Re: [agi] organising parallel processes
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > be like Skype, the popular non-scum Internet phone service that also > performs NAT hole punching (a.k.a. NAT traversal). I was not aware Skype worked like that- thanks for the info. If you are using a similar form of UDP-listener to allow the client to make a connection out where the firewall then allows responses in, you wouldn't be violating existing protocol. (and admins could turn off the feature that auto-whitelists UDP responce) > services. Relays could become performance bottlenecks too. For an initial > deployment I would like to try direct P2P unless you have a better > objection, or maybe you could just clarify the remarks you already made, > given my own clarification herein. Of course a test network can be direct P2P. I can configure my firewall (both dedicated hardware and per-machine software) to allow whatever I want. I was suggesting that a dynamic network could allow nodes to advertise their capability and perform relay services to clients that do not have direct access. From the article you posted above, it seems that the auto-whitelisting of ports for UDP response ( my firewall calls them triggered ports - if I send out port X, expect legitimate return replies on X+1 through X+Y) - your client application would only need to access any public node in the cloud to become an active server. > Thanks for the great comment. I do really do not want to waste time with the > wrong P2P design decision. I like to brainstorm. I know a little bit about computer networking. I know a little more about programming. I don't know much about artificial intelligence design, so I've mostly just been lurking here. I think if the nodes in your graph were to reinforce the existence of their connections simply by using them, it would facilitate new connections forming and becoming available for other nodes according to whatever propagation rules you devise. As the developer, you would only need to understand the mechanism on a theoretical level- there would be too much dynamic state to micromanage (or hand-code) a snapshot of the network graph at any given moment. I assume that a 'conversation' would include all nodes interested in the discussion, and that when new nodes join they would be brought up to date and could then contribute resources. Is there already an existing framework for this kind of communication? If you're going to build it, do you intend to keep the mechanism open enough that it could transport other kinds of data, or keep it tightly coupled to your application? I'm on a tangent now... it's difficult to think about this kind of thing via email. ttyl. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] organising parallel processes
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt (or anyone else), have you gotten as far as thinking about NAT hole > punching or some other solution for peer-to-peer? "NAT hole punching" has no solution because it's not a problem you can fix. If I administrate the border security for my network and I do not want your protocol running, I will block the port it uses. If you dynamically change ports to avoid this, you'll find your software blacklisted with a slew of scumware that is actively removed from the computers it infests. If you are welcome within the network, it is much less hassle (for everyone) if you properly ask for access and use bandwidth intelligently. To address your issue with P2P being blocked by ISP, you could allow those nodes with public server capability to proxy connections to client-only nodes. I know that sounds like undue pain, but this is exactly the kind of modular flexibility that distributed agents should be able to work out in response to varying network conditions (my $0.02) --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments from a lurker...
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You've merely been a *TROLL* and gotten the appropriate response. Thanks > for playing but we have no parting gifts for you. > > Who is the "we" you are referencing? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or > is that the Royal "we"? YOU are the only snide asshole/troll whom I have > had the displeasure of observing on this forum. Can you point to anyone ELSE > here who acts as you do? I don't want to participate in calling anyone a Troll. What I have observed of Matt's online presence, he was giving you an opportunity to disprove the Troll status rather than transparently ignoring you. I'm guessing he'll simply give up soon. I have little interest in downloading your software and tables and arcane howto for making it all work. In my opinion, you really can't call your product AGI until I can converse with it directly - either via it's own email address or (for a 'real-time' Turing test) an IRC channel. How difficult would it be for you to extend the Dr Eliza interface with an IRC bot frontend? If it is as accurate as you claim, it might help a lot more people by dispensing "see a REAL doctor to get X checked out" than as ... well, whatever it is now. Even with an accuracy rate that exceeds "average" doctors, I'll be as likely to dismiss it as I would dismiss a real doctor - but the machine doesn't need to play golf or drive expensive cars so it can devote the time that people can't (or won't). [I had a doctor say, "Your iron level is too low, eat more red meat." followed immediately with, "Your cholesterol is too high, eat less red meat." I was thinking, "Your diagnosis is unusable, I want my co-pay back" ] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Some thoughts of an AGI designer
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Charles D Hixson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that you need to look into the simulations that have been run > involving Evolutionarily Stable Strategies. Friendly covers many > strategies, including (I think) Dove and Retaliator. Retaliator is > almost an ESS, and becomes one if the rest of the population is either > Hawk or Dove. In a population of Doves, Probers have a high success > rate, better than either Hawks or Doves. If the population is largely > Doves with an admixture of Hawks, Retaliators do well. Etc. (Note that > each of these Strategies is successful depending on a model with certain > costs of success an other costs for failure specific to the strategy.) > Attempts to find a pure strategy that is uniformly successful have so > far failed. Mixed strategies, however, can be quite successful, and > different environments yield different values for the optimal mix. (The > model that you are proposing looks almost like Retaliator, and that's a > pretty good Strategy, but can be shown to be suboptimal against a > variety of different mixed strategies. Often even against > Prober-Retaliator, if the environment contains sufficient Doves, though > it's inferior if most of the population is simple Retaliators.) > I believe Mark's point is that the honest commitment to Friendly as an explicit goal is an attempt to minimize wasted effort achieving all other goals. Exchanging information about goals with other Friendly agents helps all parties invest optimally in achieving the goals in order of priority acceptable to the consortium of Friendly. I think one (of many) problems is that our candidate AGI must not only be capable of self-reflection when modeling its goals, but also capable of modeling the goals of other Friendly agents (with respect to each other and to the goal-model of the collective) as well as be able to decide when an UnFriendly behavior is worth declaring (modeling the consequences and impact to the group of which it is a member) That seems to be much more difficult than a selfish or ignorant Goal Stack implementation (which we would typically attempt to control via an imperative Friendly Goal) --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A possible less ass-backward way of computing naive bayesian conditional probabilities
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that does stop people from modeling systems in a simplified manner by > acting as if these limitations were met. Naïve Bayesian methods are > commonly used. I have read multiple papers saying that in many cases it > proves surprisingly accurate (considering what a gross hack it is) and, of > course, it greatly simplifies computation. Admittedly, I do not have a quantitative grasp of Bayesian methods (naive or otherwise) but if I understand qualitatively it is about attempting to reach a conclusion based on complete knowledge based on a confidence of available knowledge to the unknown. If I'm already wrong, please school me. While walking the dog tonight I was considering the application of knowledge across different domains. In this light, I considered the unknown (or unknowable) part of the problem to be similar to some amount of chaos in a system that displays a gross-level order. Increasing the precision of the measurement of the ordered part can increase the instability of the chaotic part. Is it possible that a different kind of math is required to model the chaotic part of a complex system like this? Something as fundamental as the discovery of irrational numbers perhaps? This would have been yet another fleeting thought if I hadn't returned to this thread about Bayesian (thinking?) and I was curious what insight the list could offer... --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide
On Jan 19, 2008 8:24 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all > > Turing also committed suicide. That's a personal solution to the Halting problem I do not plan to exercise. > Building a copy of your mind raises deeply troubling issues. Logically, there Agreed. If that mind is within acceptable tolerance for human life at peak load of 30%(?) of capacity, can it survive hard takeoff? I consider myself reasonably intelligent and perhaps somewhat wise - but I would not expect the stresses of thousand-fold "improvement" in throughput would scale out/up. Even the simplest human foible can become an obsessive compulsion that could destabilize the integrity of an expanding mind. I understand this to be related to the issue of Friendliness (am I wrong?) > It follows logically that there is no reason to live, that death is nothing > to fear. Given a directive to maintain life, hopefully the AI-controlled life support system keeps perspective on such logical conclusions. An AI in a nuclear power facility should have the same directive. I don't expect that it shouldn't be allowed to self-terminate (that gives rise to issues like slavery) but that it gives notice and transfers responsibilities before doing so. > In http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html I discuss how a singularity > will end the human race, but without judgment whether this is good or bad. > Any such judgment is based on emotion. Posthuman emotions will be > programmable. ... and arbitrary? Aren't we currently able to program emotions (albeit in a primitive pharmaceutical way)? Who do you expect will have control of that programming? Certainly not the individual. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=87858522-76fadd
Re: Yawn. More definitions of intelligence? [WAS Re: [agi] Ben's Definition of Intelligence]
On Jan 14, 2008 10:10 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any fool can mathematize a definition of a commonsense idea without > actually saying anything new. Ouch. Careful. :) That may be true, but it takes $10M worth of computer hardware to disprove. disclaimer: that was humor - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=85679890-97e868
Re: [agi] Incremental Fluid Construction Grammar released
On Jan 10, 2008 10:57 AM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I understand your question correctly it asks whether a non-expert > user can be guided to use Controlled English in a dialog system. In > > This is an idea that I wanted to try at Cycorp but Doug Lenat > said that it had been tried before and failed, due to great resistance > among users to Controlled English. Let's see if this idea can be made > to work now, or not. Basically, yes. I was also cynically suggesting that it would be difficult to teach the majority of existing human brains how to use Controlled English - and you wouldn't have to build them first. If you have a semi-working prototype at some point, please email me an invitation - I am very interested in such a dialog. :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=84411553-51531a
Re: [agi] Incremental Fluid Construction Grammar released
On Jan 10, 2008 9:59 AM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and that the system is to learn constructions for your examples. The below > dialog is Controlled English, in which the system understands and generates > constrained syntax and vocabulary. > [user] The elements of a shit-list can be things. > [texai] Now I understand that "the book is on my shit-list" commonly means > that the book is an element of the group of things that you hold in > disregard. If you successfully have this level of language usage from a machine, can figure out a way to have people speak as succinctly? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=84214196-da6ba6
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
On Jan 6, 2008 3:07 PM, a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Creativity is a byproduct of analogical reasoning, or abstraction. It > has nothing to do with symbols or genetic algorithms! GA is too > computationally complex to generate "creative" solutions. care to explain what sounds so absolute as to certainly be wrong? Is the brain too compurationally complex to generate "creative" solutions? (scare quotes persisted) Or are you suggesting that GA is more computationally complex than your brain? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=82423813-676f3c
Re: [agi] OpenCog
On Dec 28, 2007 1:55 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Actually, that would be a serious miusunderstanding of the framework and > >> development environment that I am building. Your system would be just > >> as easy to build as any other. > > > > ... considering the proliferation of AGI frameworks, it would appear > > that "any other" framework is pretty easy to build, no? ok, I'm being > > deliberately snarky - but if someone wrote about your own work the way > > you write about others, I imagine you would become increasingly > > defensive. > > You'll have to explain, because I am honestly puzzled as to what you > mean here. I am not a published computer scientist. I recognize there are a lot of brains here working at a level beyond my experience. I was only pointing out that using language like "just as easy to build" to trivialize "your system" could be confrontational. It may not deliberately offend anyone, either because they are also not concerned about this nuance or they discount your attitude as a matter of course. I think with slightly different sentence constructions your ideas would be better received and sound less condescending. That's all I was saying on that. > I mean "framework" in a very particular sense (something that is a > "theory generator" but not by itself a theory, and which is complete > account of the domain of interest). As such, there are few if any > explicit frameworks in AI. Implicit ones, yes, but not explicit. I do > not mean "framework" in the very loose sense of "bunch of tools" or > "bunch of mechanisms". hmm... I never considered framework in that context. I thought framework referred to more of a scaffolding to enable work. As such, a scaffolding makes a specific kind of building. Though I can see how it can be general enough to apply the technique to multiple building designs. > As for the comment above: because of that problem I mentioned, I have > evolved a way to address it, and this approach means that I have to > devise a framework that allows an extremely wide variety of Ai systems > to be constructed within the framework (this was all explained in my > paper). As a result, the framework can encompass Ben's systems as > easily as any other. It could even encompass a system built on pure > mathematical logic, if need be. I believe I misunderstood your original statement. This clarification makes more sense. > Oh, nobody expects it to arise "automatically" - I just want the > system-building process to become more automated and less hand-crafted. Again, I agree this is a good goal - but isn't it akin to optimizing too early in a development process? Sure, there are well-known solutions to certain classes of problem. Building a sloppy implementation to those solutions is foolish when there are existing 'best practice' methods. Is there currently a best practice way to achieve AI? Let me preemptively agree that we should all continuously strive to implement better practices than we may currently be comfortable with - we should be doing that anyway. (how can we build self-improving systems if we are not examples of such ourselves) > > My guess is that any system that is generalized enough to apply across > > design paradigms will lack the granular details required for actual > > implementation. > On the contrary, that is why I have spent (am still spending) such an > incredible amount of effort on building the thing. It is entirely > possible to envision a cross-paradigm framework. With a different understanding of your use of "framework" I am less dubious of this position. > Give me about $10 million a year in funding for the next three years, > and I will deliver that system to your desk on January 1st 2011. Well, I'd love to have the cash on hand to prove you wrong. It would be a nice condition to have for both of us. > There is, though, the possibility that a lot of effort could be wasted > on yet another AI project that starts out with no clear idea of why it > thinks that its approach is any better than anything that has gone > before. Given the sheer amount of wasted effort expended over the last > fifty years, I would be pretty upset to see it happen yet again. Considering the amount of wasted effort in every other sector that I have experience with, I think you should keep your expectations low. Again, I would like to be wrong. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=80057282-a98eae
Re: [agi] OpenCog
On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that would be a serious miusunderstanding of the framework and > development environment that I am building. Your system would be just > as easy to build as any other. ... considering the proliferation of AGI frameworks, it would appear that "any other" framework is pretty easy to build, no? ok, I'm being deliberately snarky - but if someone wrote about your own work the way you write about others, I imagine you would become increasingly defensive. > My purpose is to create a description language that allows us to talk > about different types of AGI system, and then construct design > variations autonmatically. I do believe an academic formalism for discussing AGI would be valuable to allow different camps to identify their similarity/difference in approach and implementation. However, I do not believe that AGI will arise "automatically" from meta-discussion. My guess is that any system that is generalized enough to apply across design paradigms will lack the granular details required for actual implementation. I applaud the effort required to succeed at your task, but it does not seem to me that you are building AGI as much as inventing a lingua franca for AGI builders. I admit in advance that I may be wrong. This is (after all) just a friendly discussion list and nobody's livelihood is being threatened here, right? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79882049-5a2bf8
Re: [agi] NL interface
On Dec 28, 2007 12:45 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's why I want to build an interface that lets users provide grammatical > information and the likes. The exact form of the GUI is still unknown -- > maybe like a panel with a lot of templates to choose from, or like the > "autocomplete" feature. I have previously recommended the interface used in the Alice programming environment. (www.Alice.org) The object browser can be directly acted upon, or the objects can be drag/dropped into the programming pane where each of the object's methods are exposed, then the parameters for each method are supplied. It quickly becomes an intuitive process. The resulting statement makes the syntax obvious and each choice can be updated by reselecting from a picklist. Even if you have no interest in animation, the programming interface does a really good job of providing flexibility without being too complicated. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79873507-07eb34
Re: [agi] AGI and Deity
On Dec 22, 2007 8:15 PM, Philip Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dawkins trivializes religion from his comfortable first world perspective > > ignoring the way of life of hundreds of millions of people and offers little > > substitute for what religion does and has done for civilization and what has > > came out of it over the ages. He's a spoiled brat prude with a glaring > > self-righteous desire to prove to people with his copious superficial > > factoids that god doesn't exist by pandering to common frustrations. He has > > little common sense about the subject in general, just his > > > > > > > Wow. Nice to see someone take that position on Dawkins. I'm ambivalent, > > but I haven't seen many rational comments against him and his views. > > Nice? Why? I thought you wanted rational comments. "Rational" by > definition means comments giving reasons, which the above do not. I used the term "nice" where perhaps 'surprising' or 'refreshing' might have been more appropriate to my intention. Many of the list I have read are so anti-religion that I would not expect an AGI thread to be equally anti-Dawkins. my use of "rational" might have been sub-optimal also. Typically anti- groups exist because they are threatened by whatever it is they are against. It appeared to me that John Rose was making a somewhat informed dismissal of Dawkins theory rather than a kneejerk/conditioned priori reaction. Maybe I assumed those opinions were formed in response to common domain knowledge of Dawkins. i responded primarily to your question: why - Hopefully this explains motivation for my original comment without introducing too many new 'irrational' arguments. :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=78928262-8a6673
Re: [agi] BMI/BCI Growing Fast
On Dec 14, 2007 10:07 AM, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we're not making people smarter with currently available resources, > > why would we invest in research to discover expensive new technologies > > to make people smarter? We need that money to invest in research for > > expensive new technologies to allow people to be lazier. > > You are thinking mostly about the USA, it seems. > > I was thinking mostly about the People's Republic of China. I admit, I am commenting only on my experience in/with USA. Is China pushing its people into being smarter? Are they giving incentives beyond the US-style capitalist reasons for being smart? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=76315923-4ba235
Re: [agi] BMI/BCI Growing Fast
On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, if a certain nation were to make laws allowing this, and to encourage > research into this, then potentially they could gain a dramatic advantage > over other nations... > > There does therefore seem a possibility for a "brain enhancement race" > if a case is made to some national government that within say 10-20 years > effort a massively productivity-increasing brain-enhancement could be made. Are there any efforts at using Nootropic drugs in a 'brain enhancement race' ? I haven't heard about it, but then I wouldn't because the program would be kept secret. Making the general public smarter is not in the best interest of government, who wants to keep us fat dumb and (relatively) happy (read: distracted). If we're not making people smarter with currently available resources, why would we invest in research to discover expensive new technologies to make people smarter? We need that money to invest in research for expensive new technologies to allow people to be lazier. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=76063874-be9528
Re: [agi] The Function of Emotions is Torture
On Dec 12, 2007 9:27 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It also shows a very limited understanding of emotions. What do you hope to convey by making comments like this? I often wonder how arrogance and belittling others for their opinions has ever made a positive contribution to a creative endeavor. Nobody has yet proven their pet theory leads absolutely to AGI (which seems to mean many things to different people, but overall it hasn't been done). So what right does that give any individual to denounce another? If we, as custodians of our creations, are unable to be consistently civil to one another then I fear successfully producing 'human-like or greater' levels of intelligence may be unimaginably bad for us. Are we ready to become parents to AGI while we act like children? ...Just a semi-random thought sparked by this evening's thread about emotional torture of AGI... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=75492930-4d8a37
Re: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research])
On 12/12/07, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This would allow a large amount of knowledge to be extracted in a > distributed manner, keeping track of the quality of information gathered > from each person as a trust metric, and many facts would be gathered and > checked for truth. > Something along the lines of a higher quality Yahoo Questions, with an > active component, and central knowledge base. > I think the knowledge base is one of the most important pieces of these, and > hope to start seeing some more of ppls ideas and implementations of KR db's. I believe where you said "central knowledge base" you mean "distributed KB" - right? The idea of keeping local KB at each node shares the burden for storage/bandwidth to every node in the network. Your trust metrics are how nodes conditionally connect for per-topic fact-checking. I have already volunteered my free CPU/bandwidth to a prototype of this model. Of course, I'd like to be a collaborator of mechanisms involved in addition to a user of the grid. Even if it starts out only a toy or hobby, it would still teach us a great deal. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=75442948-fd876c
Re: [agi] AGI and Deity
On Dec 10, 2007 6:59 AM, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dawkins trivializes religion from his comfortable first world perspective > ignoring the way of life of hundreds of millions of people and offers little > substitute for what religion does and has done for civilization and what has > came out of it over the ages. He's a spoiled brat prude with a glaring > self-righteous desire to prove to people with his copious superficial > factoids that god doesn't exist by pandering to common frustrations. He has > little common sense about the subject in general, just his > Wow. Nice to see someone take that position on Dawkins. I'm ambivalent, but I haven't seen many rational comments against him and his views. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=74209029-86d66a
Re: Re[4]: [agi] Do we need massive computational capabilities?
On Dec 8, 2007 5:33 PM, Dennis Gorelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you describe - is set of AGI nodes. > AGI prototype is just one of such node. > AGI researcher doesn't have to develop all set at once. It's quite > sufficient to develop only one AGI node. Such node will be able to > work on single PC. > Then I'd like to quantify terminology. What is the sum of N "AGI Nodes" where N > 1? Is that a community of discrete AGI, or a single multi-nodal entity? I don't imagine that a single node is initially much more than a narrow-AI data miner. The twist that separates this from any commercially available OLAP cube processor is the infrastructure for aquiring new information from distributed nodes. In this sense, I imagine that the internode communications and transaction record contains the 'complexity' (from another recent thread) that allows interesting behaviors to emerge - if not AGI, then at least a novelty worth pursuing. If the node that was a PC on the internet is a CPU in a supercomputer (or a PC in a Beowulf cluster) is it more or less a part of the whole? Semantically I'm not sure you can say "this node is an AGI" any more than you can say "This neuron contains the intelligence" I do agree with you that any intelligence that is capable of asking/answering a question can be considered a 'node' in distributed AGI. But this high level of agreement makes many assumptions about shared definitions of important terms. I would like to investigate those definitions without the typical bickering about who is right or wrong because (imo) there are only different perspectives. The first team to produce AGI will not necessarily disprove that any other strategy will not work. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=74013728-9789fb
Re: Re[2]: [agi] Do we need massive computational capabilities?
On Dec 7, 2007 7:41 PM, Dennis Gorelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, my proposal requires lots of regular PCs with regular network
> connections.
>
> Properly connected set of regular PCs would usually have way more
> power than regular PC.
> That makes your hardware request special.
> My point is - AGI can successfully run on singe regular PC.
> Special hardware would be required later, when you try to scale
> out working AGI prototype.
>
I believe Matt's proposal is not as much about the exposure to memory or
sheer computational horsepower - it's about access to learning experience.
A supercomputer atop an ivory tower (or in the deepest government
sub-basement) has an immense memory and speed (and dense mesh of
interconnects, etc., etc.) - but without interaction from outside itself,
it's really just a powerful navel-gazer.
Trees do not first grow a thick trunk and deep roots, then change to growing
leaves to capture sunlight. As I see it, each node in Matt's proposed
network enables IO to the us [existing examples of intelligence/teachers].
Maybe these nodes can ask questions, "What does my owner know of A?" - the
answer becomes part of its local KB. Hundreds of distributed agents are now
able to query Matt's node about A (clearly Matt does not have time to answer
500 queries on topic A) During the course of "processing" the local KB on
topic A, there is a reference to topic B. Matt's node automatically queries
every node that previously asked about topic A (seeking first likely
authority on the inference) - My node asks me, "What do you know of B? Is
A->B?" I contribute to my node's local KB, and it weights the inference for
A->B. This answer is returned to Matt's node (among potentially hundreds of
other relative weights) and Matt's node strengthen the A->B inference based
on received responses. At this point, the distribution of weights for A->B
are all over the network depending on the local KB of each node and the
historical traffic of query/answer flow. After some time, I ask my node
about topic C. It knows nothing of topic C, so it asks me directly to
deposit information to the local KB (initial context) - through the course
of 'conversation' with other nodes, my answer comes back as the aggregate of
the P2P knowledge within a query radius. On a simple question I may only
allow 1 hour of think time, for a deeper research project that radius of
query may be allowed to extend 2 weeks of interconnect. During my research,
my node will necessarily become "interested" in topic C - and will likely
become known among the network as the local expert. ("local expert" for a
topic would be a useful designation to weigh each node for primary query
targets as well as 'trusting' the weight of the answers from each node)
I don't think this is vastly different from how people (as working examples
of intelligence nodes) gather knowledge from peers.
Perhaps this approach to "intelligence" is not an absolute definition as
much as a "best effort/most useful answer to date" intention. Even if this
schema does not extend to emergent AGI, it builds a useful infrastructure
that can be utilized by currently existing intelligences as well as whatever
AGI does eventually come into existence.
Matt, is this coherent with your view or am I off base?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73898638-6a4fad
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
On Dec 6, 2007 8:23 AM, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007 6:23 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > resistance to moving onto the second stage. You have enough psychoanalytical > > understanding, I think, to realise that the unusual length of your reply to > > me may possibly be a reflection of that resistance and an inner conflict. > > What is bizarre to me, in this psychoanalysis of Ben Goertzel that you > present, > is that you overlook [snip] > > Mike, you can make a lot of valid criticisms against me, but I don't > think you can > claim I have not originated an "interdependent network of creative ideas." > I certainly have done so. You may not like or believe my various ideas, but > for sure they form an interdependent network. Read "The Hidden Pattern" > for evidence. I just wanted to comment on how well Ben "accepted" Mike's 'analysis.' Personally, I was offended by Mike's inconsiderate use of language. Apparently we have different ideas of etiquette, so that's all I'll say about it. (rather than be drawn into a completely off-topic pissing contest over who is right to say what, etc.) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73157985-48127a
Re: [agi] RE:P2P and/or communal AGI development [WAS Hacker intelligence level...]
On Dec 3, 2007 11:03 PM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 03 December 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Another method of doing search agents, in the mean time, might be to > take neural tissue samples (or simple scanning of the brain) and try to > simulate a patch of neurons via computers so that when the simulated > neurons send good signals, the search agent knows that there has been a > good match that excites the neurons, and then tells the wetware human > what has been found. The problem that immediately comes to mind is that > neurons for such searching are probably somewhere deep in the > prefrontal cortex ... does anybody have any references to studies done > with fMRI on people forming Google queries? ...and a few dozen brains from which we can extract the useful parts? :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71797586-08a419
Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
On Dec 3, 2007 12:12 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get it : you and most other AI-ers are equating "hard" with "very, very > complex," right? But you don't seriously think that the human mind > successfully deals with language by "massive parallel computation", do you? Very very complex tends to exceed one's ability to properly model and especially predict. Even if the human mind invokes some special kind of magical cleverness, do you think you (judging from your writing) have some unique ability to isolate that function (noun) without simultaneously using that function (verb) ? I often imagine that I understand the working of my own mind almost perfectly. Those that claim to have grasped the quintessential bit typically end up so far over the edge that they are unable to express it in meaningful or useful terms. > Isn't it obvious that the brain is able to understand the wealth of language > by relatively few computations - quite intricate, hierarchical, > multi-levelled processing, yes, (in order to understand, for example, any of > the sentences you or I are writing here), but only a tiny fraction of the > operations that computers currently perform? I believe you are making that statement because you wish it to be true. I see no basis for anything to be "obvious" - especially the formalism required to define what the term means. This is due primarily to the complexity associated with recursive self-reflection. > The whole idea of massive parallel computation here, surely has to be wrong. > And yet none of you seem able to face this to my mind obvious truth. We each continue to persist in our delusions. Yours may be no different in the end. :) > I only saw this term recently - perhaps it's v. familiar to you (?) - that > the human brain works by "look-up" rather than "search". Hard problems can > have relatively simple but ingenious solutions. How is the look-up table built? Usually by experience. When we have enough similar experiences to "look up" a solution to general adaptive intelligence, we will have likely been close enough to it for so long that (probably) nobody will be surprised. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71652723-808348
Re: [agi] RE:P2P and/or communal AGI development [WAS Hacker intelligence level...]
On Dec 3, 2007 5:07 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When a user asks a question or posts information, the message would be > broadcast to many nodes, which could choose to ignore them or relay them to > other nodes that it believes would find the message more relevant. Eventually > the message gets to a number of experts, who then reply to the message. The > source and destination nodes would then update their links to each other, > replacing the least recently used links. > I wrote my thesis on the question of whether such a system would scale to a > large, unreliable network. (Short answer: yes). > http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/thesis.html > > Implementation detail: how to make a P2P client useful enough that people will > want to install it? That sounds almost word-for-word like something I was visualizing (though not producing as a thesis) I believe the next step of such a system is to become an abstraction between the user and the network they're using. So if you can hook into your P2P network via a firefox extension, (consider StumbleUpon or Greasemonkey) so it (the agent) can passively monitor your web interaction - then it could be learn to screen emails (for example) or pre-chew either your first 10 google hits or summarize the next 100 for relevance. I have been told that by the time you have an agent doing this well, you'd already have AGI - but i can't believe this kind of data mining is beyond narrow AI (or requires fully general adaptive intelligence) Maybe when I get around to the Science part of my BS degree (after the Arts filler) I will explore to a greater depth for a thesis. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71648663-f0a7ee
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
On Nov 28, 2007 9:23 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An open-ended, ambiguous language is in fact the sine qua non of AGI. > Thankyou for indirectly pointing that out to me. Would you agree that an absolutely precise language with zero ambiguity would be somewhat stifling for use in a "creative" mode? It seems to me that new points are discovered when different observers attempt to relate their positions relative to a third point of discussion. The analogies, misunderstandings, reconciliation, and meta-symbols that are required for even the simplest agreement often generates more context about the other party in the conversation than the point upon which they eventually agree. you think? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=69974416-f4c42d
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
On Nov 28, 2007 9:20 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sunday, November 25, 2007 > > Think Geek. Bet you're not picturing a woman. Nothing about a [computer] geek necessarily implies gender at all. To be fair, ask this same question but replace women with any other 'minority' and see if it's still a problem. Also, ask the question about how many of these stereotypical "geeks" are successfully employed in the real world these days. Perhaps the reason there are so few computer geeks is because those who are responsible for maintaining corporate computer systems have had to mature into roles less obviously geek. I have a very anti-bias bias :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=69403374-a2080b
Re: Re[4]: [agi] Funding AGI research
On Nov 20, 2007 8:27 PM, Dennis Gorelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Start with weak AI programs. That would push technology envelope > further and further and in the end AGI will be possible. Yeah - because "weak" AI is so simple. Why not just make some run-of-the-mill narrow AI with a single goal of "Build AGI"? You can just relax while it does all the work. "It's turtles all the way down" - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=67862446-cc7a80
Re: [agi] Human vs human-level Intelligence
On 11/7/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is no reason why properly designed AGIs with world knowledge and the > power to compute from it would have any less common sense than humans. Ok. Are you also going to sufficiently cripple your AGI's ability to think rationally that they are completely comparable in skills as a human? With super-human skill at "common sense" and equally superhuman rationality, will this AGI be considered mentally healthy if the observing psychologist is not augmented to extra-super-human reasoning? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=62531990-bd4e7c
[agi] Human vs human-level Intelligence
http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/11/02/the-logic-of-schizophrenia/1480.html While reading this article I thought about the discussion point regarding whether humans will be able to relate to AGI as it grows to (and beyond) "human-level" intelligence. "..the results of the study suggest that on a straightforward interpretation, people with schizophrenia reason more logically than healthy controls either because they are better at logic, or because they are worse at common sense." "better at logic and worse at common sense" seems to me to describe current hopes for AGI - does that imply a 'pathological' state of thinking? Are these the kinds of questions one asks an AGI Psychologist? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=62502251-5f06e0
Re: [agi] Nirvana? Manyana? Never!
On 11/3/07, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, shaping the reality gives you pleasure. Machine would read it and > offer you many orders of magnitude stronger neverending pleasure of > the same type. And you would say "no, thanks"? There is certain > pleasure threshold after which the "I want it" gets iresistable no > matter what risks are involved. You are describing a very convoluted process of drug addiction. If I can get you hooked on heroine or crack cocaine, I'm pretty confident that you will abandon your desire to produce AGI in order to get more of the drugs to which you are addicted. You mentioned in an earlier post that you expect to have this monstrous machine invade my world and 'offer' me these incredible benefits. It sounds to me like you are taking the blue pill and living contentedly in the Matrix. If you are going to proselytize that view, I suggest better marketing. The intellectual requirements to accept AGI-driven nirvana imply the rational thinking which precludes accepting it. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=60741497-8715c9
Re: [agi] NLP + reasoning + conversational state?
On 11/2/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Google uses a cluster of 10^6 CPUs, enough to keep a copy of the searchable > part of the Internet in RAM. And a list of millions of hits is the ideal way to represent the results, right? Ask.com is publicly mocking this fact in an effort to make themselves look better. Kartoo.com does a good job of presenting the relationship of search results to each other. Suppose you get a tip about some cog sci research that might be relevant to AGI. You ask one of your undergraduate assistants to dig up everything they can find about it. Sure, they use Google. They use Lexisnexis. They use a dozen primary data gathering tools. Knowing you don't want 4Gb of text, they summarize all the information into what they believe you are actually asking for - based on earlier requests you have made, their own understanding of what you are looking for and whatever they learn during the data collection process. A good research assistant gets recruited for graduate work, a bad research assistant probably gets a pat on the back at the end of the semester. My question was about the feasibility of a narrow-AI research agent as a useful step towards AGI. Even if it's not fully adaptable for general tasks, the commercial viability of moderate success would be profitable. Or is commercial viability too mundane a consideration for ivory tower AGI research? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=60737904-74aafd
Re: [agi] NLP + reasoning + conversational state?
On 11/2/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, one alternative is to deduce that aluminum is a mass noun by the low > frequency of phrases like "an aluminum is" from a large corpus of text (or > count Google hits). You could also deduce that aluminum is an adjective from > phrases like "an aluminum chair", etc. More generally, you would cluster > words in the high dimensional vector space of their immediate context, then > derive rules for moving from cluster to cluster. > > However, the fact that this method is not used in the best language models > suggests it may exceed the computational limits of your PC. This might > explain why we keep wading into the swamp. It is doubtful this kind of examination of information can be 'conversational language' on PC computation for a while. What do you think about the feasibility of a research request using this method? ex: Find interesting information about: aluminum - to which the program builds a structure of information that it can continue refining and expanding until I return to check on it several hours later. If I think it's on the right track for my definition of interesting, I could let it continue researching for days. At the end of several days work, it would have a body of 'knowledge' that represents a cost to compile which makes it a local authority on this subject. Assuming someone else might request information about the same topic, my local knowledge store could be included in preliminary findings. Clearly a distributed network of nodes is never going to be capable of the brute-force speed of knowing all things in one place. I don't usually seek to know all things at once, just a useful number of things about a limited topic. That might good enough to make the effort worthwhile. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=60638592-961890
Re: [agi] Nirvana? Manyana? Never!
On 11/2/07, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It might currently be hard to accept for association-based human > minds, but things like "roses", "power-over-others", "being worshiped" > or "loved" are just waste of time with indirect feeling triggers > (assuming the nearly-unlimited ability to optimize). I am also assuming you have something more to your bliss-engine than mind-crushing pleasure. I believe the strong revulsion expressed against that is due to the appearance of futility of that state of being. If your plan is to consume endless pleasure sensation with no return on the investment of resource you represent, then "unlimited" optimization includes removing the power drain you represent to the collective who actually want to DO something. I admit to being fairly unmotivated at times, but the scenario you describe is untenable to my current unaugmented state of being - I think I would be less interested in the non-existance you propose when faced with an increased ability to shape my shared reality. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=60592441-f743ad
[agi] The Prize Is Won; The Simplest Universal Turing Machine Is Proved
http://blog.wolfram.com/2007/10/the_prize_is_won_the_simplest.html Can someone tell me what this means in the context of this list? Also, that "machine" appears to be fractal. Is it truly fractal, or am I incorrectly assuming that due to a grossly self-similar pattern? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=58073664-ac32a0
Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses.. P.S.
On 10/20/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Images are *not* an efficient way to store data. Unless they are > three-dimensional images, they lack data. Normally, they include a lot of > unnecessary or redundant data. It is very, very rare that a computer stores > any but the smallest image without compressing it. And remember, an image > can be stored as symbols in a relational database very easily as a set of > x-coords, y-coords, and colors. maps ARE symbols. Whether it's a paper street map or Google maps, they're a collection of simple symbols that represent the objects they're "mapping." At the most ridiculous, each pixel on the screen is a symbol that your optic nerve detects and passes to your brain to find some meaningful correspondence to interpret. I think the point that Mark is making is that the representation (display) of data can resemble a map - but the map (or "image") is only one possible interpretation of the data. There are algorithms to provide close-enough approximations of details where there is insufficient data. ex: It is unlikely that an elevation map would have a 1000 meter variance over a 2 meter gap in the data points if either side of the gap are equal elevations. That kind of 'smoothing' can not be done with images alone - there must be data. If you do have only map images, you would have to extract data from the map before you can use it effectively against other data. So why store the data in an image in the first place? Arguably, the data storage mechanism is irrelevant - there will be decisions made about performance depending on the initial acquisition and later retrieval realities: maybe a camera streams video directly to disk to achieve high throughput, then later analysis compresses the scene into a symbolic representation at less than a realtime rate. You can't really argue that the video stream is an ideal way to manage the details in a knowledgebase. (eh Mike?) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=55761625-a2d246
Re: [agi] Poll
On 10/18/07, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because neither of these things can be done at present, we can barely even > talk to each other about things like goals, semantics, grounding, > intelligence, and so forth... the process of taking these unknown and > perhaps inherently complex things and compressing them into simple language > symbols throws out too much information to even effectively communicate what > little we do understand. Are you suggesting that a narrow AI designed to improve communication between researchers would be a worthwhile investment? Imagine it as the scaffolding required to support the building efforts. "Natural" language is enough of a problem in its own right that we have difficulty talking to each other, to say nothing of building algorithms that can do it even as poorly as we do. At least if there were a way to exchange the context along with an idea, there might be less confusion between sender and receiver. The danger of contextually rich posts (the kind Richard Loosemore often authors) is that there is too much information to consume. That's where I think narrow Assistive Intelligence could add the sender's assumed context to a neutral exchange format that the receiver's agent could properly display in an unencumbered way. The only way I see for that to happen is that the agents are trained on/around the unique core conceptual mode of each researcher. (I know... that's brainstorming with no idea how to begin any implementation) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=55034905-bea938
Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
On 10/7/07, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... logic is unsuited for conversation... what a great quote - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50946633-33f0fb
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am sorry, Mike, I have to give up. > > What you say is so far away from what I said in the paper that there is > just no longer any point of contact. oh. So we weren't having a discussion. You were having a lecture and I was missing the point. That's fine. This is a form of entertainment for me. I don't have anything to prove. thanks for your consideration. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50875268-6eac9d
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my use of GoL in the paper I did emphasize the prediction part at > first, but I then went on (immediately) to talk about the problem of > finding hypotheses to test. Crucially, I ask if it is reasonable to > suppose that Conway could have written down the patterns he *wanted* to > see emerge, then found the rules that would generate his desired patterns. > > It is *that* question that is at the heart of the matter. That is what > the paper was all about, and that issue is the only one I want to > defend. It is so important that we do not lose sight of that context, > because if we do ignore that (as many people have done), we just go > around in circles. Is it reasonable: I doubt precisely stating your goal is enough to reach it. (that is, unless you're Oprah and believe very strongly in The Secret) I just realized your question is if Conway could have written two frames of cells, then reverse-engineered the transformations that move from A to B. That transformation would be absolutely correct in getting from A to B, however as a candidate for the Universal ruleset, it would have to apply to every transformation from B to C or X to Y. Probably this candidate would prove unusable outside the fragile case for which is was written. I can write a very simple loop to output the records of a table with known fields, it takes much more consideration to generalize the solution to any number of unknown fields. Consider states T1 and T5. Use the same transformation hypothesis generator employed in the paragraph above. Given four steps from T1 to T5, there may have been one complete transform and three static states or four 'normal' transformations. How can a T1 to T5 transformation rule be written? Consider a cyclic behavior with a period of 4 - the transformation rule would have to observe a static state because it's observation moments are not granular enough to detect the changes. A glider with a period below the observation interval would give rise to a transformation rule describing, "Given this collection of cells, the next observation in open space it will appear to have moved one unit left" Of course that rule requires open space, the number of configurations of impact with other cells during the observation interval give rise to an explosion of possibility. The hypothesis generation algorithm will have a computational complexity that is orders of magnitude larger than the classical GoL rules making observations/computes at each 1 unit of time. To pull back from the simplistic GoL example, consider the planetary motion example. I think I better understand the rules prediction you were talking about - the true planetary motion rules are as unavailable to Kepler as an observer in the GoL world. So by observation, he detects a regularity to the moon's path around the earth and works out a theory for why that happens. Then he uses the theory to predict the future state of the moon - and he's right. Has he found the absolutely Truth in planetary motion? No. He has found a good enough approximation for the purpose of predicting local observed phenomenon. Is there an extra term in the True formula, for which our local observation conveniently sets a value of 1 in a multiplication process? Then this predictive function has limitations on use. it is still sufficiently useful when the hidden variable maintains the value of 1 (for our locally observable universe) Think of a multidimensional motion function that has been curried down from higher dimensions, leaving only those dimensions Kepler could observe. I initially thought we were discussing the patterns than can arise from examining the actual rules, rather than trying to discover the rules from observation of states. In the context of AGI research, I think the discovery of explanations is a much more interesting problem. I think resource limitations make brute force "compute every possible permutation" approaches to hypothesis generation absolutely unfeasible. Even with only a few known parameters, the combinatorial explosion will cripple the largest machine we have - but with an unknown number of parameters, the task of finding every permutation is impossible. So the ability to reason about classes and test hypothesis by proof (without requiring exhaustive search) is important to working intelligence. I feel there is a great deal of value in reasoning about AGI as a class of computation rather than a single solution or program. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50795592-49b3a8
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/5/07, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be abstract, you could subsitute "semi-Thue system", "context-free > grammar", "first-order logic", "Lindenmeyer system", "history monoid", > etc. for GoL, and still get an equivalent argument about complexity > and predicatability. Singling out GoL as somehow "special" is a red > herring; the complexity properties you describe are shared by a variety > of systems and logics. So you are agreeing with Richard using confrontational language? Richard's point to me earlier was exactly this issue about GoL. Perhaps this was because I bit down hard on some "extremely simple" case that I have had some experience (unlike many of the lengthy graduate papers discussed here) You could equally substitute gibberish words for GoL and 'get an equivalent argument' because the discussion is about the properties of the entire class rather than an specific instance. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50699248-61f722
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My stock example: planetary motion. Newton (actually Tycho Brahe, > Kepler, et al) observed some global behavior in this system: the orbits > are elliptical and motion follows Kepler's other laws. This corresponds > to someone seeing Game of Life for the first time, without knowing how > it works, and observing that the motion is not purely random, but seems > to have some regular patterns in it. > > Having noticed the global regularities, the next step, for Newton, was > to try to find a compact explanation for them. He was looking for the > underlying rules, the low-level mechanisms. He eventually realised (a > long story of course!) that an inverse square law of gravitation would > predict all of the behavior of these planets. This corresponds to a > hypothetical case in which a person seeing those Game of Life patterns > would somehow deduce that the rules that must be giving rise to the > patterns are the particular rules that appear in GoL. And, to be > convincing, they would have to prove that the rules gave rise to the > behavior. with GoL you started with the rules and try to predict the behavior. with planetary motion you observe the behavior and try to discover the rules. Consider the observation of an oscillating spring or a bouncing ball. There is an exact function to determine the high-school physics version of these events. Of course they always account for "in a frictionless vacuum" or some other means of eliminating the damping effects of the environment. Is the basic function to compute the trajectory of a launch sufficient to know where the shell will land? On a windless day, probably. In a stiff breeze, there may be otherwise inexplicable behaviors. Eliminating retrograde orbits required a fundamental shift in perspective (literally changing the center of the universe) If there were a million-line CA world: So it's a million lines, it'll take more time but it's the same class of problem, no? Or are we talking about rules where one cell can modify it's own rules? Isn't that the crux of the RSI argument? Imagine a GoL cell that spontaneously gains the power to not die of loneliness until the round after it's isolated. Suppose also that this cell is able to confer this ability to any cells that it spawns. The GoL universe is fundamentally changed. Does the single evolved cell have to know the other rules to add this one? Have you ever played the drinking game 'asshole' ? If the game goes on long enough, I doubt anyone can track all of the rules :) I digress. Like those classic physics problems, we don't really need to have the ideally compact formula to have a usefully working rule. I think the real intelligence is getting work done without a complete formula. Otherwise it would be equivalent to our current computation- nobody is getting excited about the bubblesort algorithm today. I guess another level of intelligence would be the leap from bubblesort to a recursive method because a better O() efficiency. .. gotta stop here because there's too much distraction around me to think clearly. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50615645-82967d
Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content
On 10/5/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then I guess we are in perfect agreement. Friendliness is what the > > average > > person would do. > > Which one of the words in "And not my proposal" wasn't clear? As far as I > am concerned, friendliness is emphatically not what the average person would > do. Yeah - Computers already do what the average person would: wait expectantly to be told exactly what to do and how to behave. I guess it's a question of how cynically we define the average person. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50390046-8654d8
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hear you, but let me quickly summarize the reason why I introduced GoL > as an example. Thank you. I appreciate the confirmation of understanding my point. I have observed many cases where the back and forth bickering over email lists have been based in an unwillingness to concede an other's point. I am the first to admit that I have more questions than answers. > I wanted to use GoL as a nice-and-simple example of a system whose > overall behavior (in this case, the existence of certain patterns that > are "stable" or "interesting") seems impossible to predict from a > knowledge of the rules. I only wanted to use GoL to *illustrate* the > general class, not because I was interested in GoL per se. Gotcha - GoL is an example case of a class. You threw it out there to make a point. Let's just say is the only symbol on the table. In order to assimilate the idea you are proposing, the model needs to be examined. So if we discuss this one example it is not to the exclusion of the concept you're trying to illustrate, but a precursor to it. In my own concept formation, this step is like including libraries or compiling a function. I think sometimes you get frustrated that it takes so long for people accomplish this step. Part of the problem is that email is such a low bandwidth medium. (another part is that the smarter we are, the quicker we "get" stuff and we assume others should be as capable) > The important thing is that this idea (that there are some systems that > show interesting, but unexplainable, behavior at the global level) has > much greater depth and impact than people have previously thought. Can you give an example of a ruleset that CAN be used to predict global behavior? "interesting but unexplainable behavior" - would you define this class to include chaos or chaotic systems? I'm trying to reason to the general case, but I don't have enough other properties of the class in mind to usefully visualize. (conceptualize?) I think those researchers who have invested in studying chaos are people who have given this idea a great deal of depth and impact. It's a hard problem because our normal 'scientific' method fails almost by definition. I believe the framework you have discussed is a proposal for a method of investigating this behavior. Am I far off, or am I in the general vicinity? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50387859-7fcf22
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
> about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
> predicts all the "interesting creatures" given only the rules?
>
> The question of getting something to recognize the existence of the
> patterns is a good testbed, for sure.
Given finite rules about a finite world with an en effectively
unlimited resource, it seems that every "interesting creature" exists
as the subset of all permutations minus the noise that isn't
interesting. The problem is in a provable definition of interesting
(which was earlier defined for example as 'cyclic') Also, who is
willing to invest unlimited resource to exhaustively search a "toy"
domain? Even if there were parallels that might lead to formalisms
applicable in a larger context, we would probably divert those
resources to other tasks. I'm not sure this is a bad idea. Perhaps
our human attention span is a defense measure against wasting life's
resources on searches that promise fitness without delivering useful
results.
In the case of RSI, the rules are not fixed. I wouldn't dare call
them mathematical infinite, but an evolving ruleset probably should be
considered functionally unlimited. I imagine Incompleteness applies
here, even if I don't know how to explicitly state it. I believe
finding "all" of the interesting creatures is nearly impossible.
Finding "an" interesting creature should be possible given a
sufficiently exact definition of interesting. After some amount of
search, the results probably have to be expressed as a confidence
metric like, "given an exhaustive search of only 10% of the known
region, there we found N number of candidates that match the criteria
within X degree of freedom. By assessment of the distribution of
candidates in the searched space, extrapolation suggests there may be
{prediction formula result} 'interesting creatures' in this universe"
the Drake equation is an example of this kind of answer/function.
Ironic that it's purpose is to determine the number of intelligences
in our own universe. Of course Fermi paradox, testable hypothesis,
etc. etc. - the point is not about whether GoL searches or SETI
searches are any more or less productive than each other. My interest
is in how intelligences of any origin (natural human brains,
human-designed CPU, however improbable aliens) manage to find common
symbols in order to create/exchange/consume ideas. If we have this
difficulty communicating with each other given the shared KB of
classes (archetypes?) of human existence, how likely is it that we
will even recognize non-human intelligence if/when we encounter it?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50221522-7d52f7
Re: [agi] Conway's Game of Life and Turing machine equivalence
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do it then. You can start with interesting=cyclic. should GoL gliders be considered cyclic? I personally think the candidate-AGI that finds a glider to be similar to a local state of cells from N iterations earlier to be particularly astute. (assuming this observation is learned rather than hard-coded by the developer) Human 'players' of GoL will stop a run after reaching a stable cycle because it is no longer interesting. The collection of cells comprising a glider stops being interesting when we predict that it will never 'hit' anything. Some of the seeds that ship with popular GoL implementations are absolutely amazing. I'm sure after I understand their nature the novelty will wear off. :) I've been thinking about GoL, pattern recognition, vision, concept representation. If have some ideas that I'd like to experiment with, but I'm not really sure yet how to express them let alone implement a test. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50122339-b77f2c
Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content
On 10/3/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think your notion that post-grads with powerful machines would only > operate in the space of ideas that don't work is unfair. Yeah, i can agree - it was harsh. My real intention was to suggest that NOT having a bigger computer is not excuse for not yet having a design that works. IF you find a design that works, the bigger computer will be the inevitable result. > Your last paragraph actually seems to make an argument for the value of > clock cycles because it implies general intelligences will come through > iterations. More opps/sec enable iterations to be made faster. I also believe that general intelligence will require a great deal of cooperative effort. The frameworks discussion (Richard, et al) could provide positive pressure toward that end. I feel we have a great deal of communications development in order to even begin to express the essential character of the disparate approaches to the problem, let alone be able to collaborate on anything but the most basic ideas. I don't have a solution (obviously) but I have a vague idea of a type of problem. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=49620438-6f8601
Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content
On 10/3/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In fact, if the average AI post-grad of today had such hardware to play > with, things would really start jumping. Within ten years the equivents > of such machines could easily be sold for somewhere between $10k and > $100k, and lots of post-grads will be playing with them. I see the only value to giving post-grads the kind of computing hardware you are proposing is that they can more quickly exhaust the space of ideas that won't work. Just because a program has more lines of code does not make it more elegant and just because there are more clock cycles per unit time does not make a computer any smarter. Have you ever computed the first dozen iterations of a sierpinski gasket by hand? There appears to be no order at all. Eventually over enough iterations the pattern becomes clear. I have little doubt that general intelligence will develop in a similar way: there will be many apparently unrelated efforts that eventually flesh out in function until they overlap. It might not be seamless but there is not enough evidence that human cognitive processing is a seamless process either. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=49495105-78df69
Re: [agi] intelligent compression
On 10/3/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The higher levels detect complex objects like airplanes or printed words or > faces. We could (lossily) compress images much smaller if we knew how to > recognize these features. The idea would be to compress a movie to a written > script, then have the decompressor reconstruct the movie. The reconstructed > movie would be different, but not in a way that anyone would notice, in the > same way that pairs of images such as > http://www.slylockfox.com/arcade/6diff/index.html would have the same > compressed representations. Is this because we use a knowledgebase of classes for things like "airplane" that can be used to fill in the details that are lost during compression? Can that KB be seeded, or must it be experientially evolved from a more primitive precept? Consider how little useful skill a human baby has compared to other animals. Perhaps thats the trade-off for a high potential general intelligence, there must be a lot of faltering and (semi-) useless motion while learning the basics. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=49489831-5af343
Re: [agi] intelligent compression
On 10/2/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It says a lot about the human visual perception system. This is an extremely > lossy function. Video contains only a few bits per second of useful > information. The demo is able to remove a large amount of uncompressed image > data without changing the compressed representation in our brains by > exploiting only the lowest levels of the visual perception function. re: exploiting "only" the lowers levels What are the higher levels of visual function? How could they be exploited? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=49185222-8ff5a8
[agi] intelligent compression
On 9/22/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You understand that I am not proposing to solve AGI by using text compression. > I am proposing to test AI using compression, as opposed to something like the > Turing test. The reason I use compression is that the test is fast, > objective, and repeatable. It is less expensive to maintain a compression > benchmark than a Loebner prize. demo/discussion: http://www.seamcarving.com/ try it: http://rsizr.com/ What are the implications of this for robot vision and memory? I understand that this is not technically AGI. It seems to me that this is approximating the kind of selective importance that we use to remember details about a scene. This is narrow intelligence for preserving the apparent visual object in a picture, but I imagine there would be an analogous process for preserving other data implied by a scene. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=48869171-de3d2d
Re: [agi] A problem with computer science?
On 9/28/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not necessarily. In my work I measure intelligence to 9 significant digits. Ok sure, by what unit are you measuring? :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=48038766-fffc59
Re: Reasoning in natural language (was Re: [agi] Books)
On 6/11/07, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interesting points, but I believe you can get around alot of the problems with two additional factors, a. using either large quantities of quality text, (ie novels, newspapers) or similar texts like newspapers. b. using a interactive built in 'checker' system, assisted learning where the AI could consult with humans in a simple way. I would hope that a candidate AGI would have the capability of emailing anyone who has ever talked with it. ex: After a few minutes' chat, the AI asks the human for their email in case there it has any follow up questions - the same way any human interviewer might. If 10 humans are asked the same question, the statistically oddball response can probably be ignored (or reduced in weight) to clarify the answer. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] The Advantages of a Conscious Mind
On 5/6/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, I'll match my understanding and knowledge of, and ideas on, the free will issue against anyone's. Arrogant much? >> I just introduced an entirely new dimension to the free will debate. You literally won't find it anywhere. Including Dennett. Free thinking. If we are free to decide, then it follows we are also free to think Oh, please . . . . Seriously. The only other identity I have ever encountered with such zealous believe in their own accomplishments is A. T. Murray / Mentifex. I wonder what would happen if these two super-egos (pun intended) were to collide? Sorry to contribute so little to the actual discussion, but really... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/3/07, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/3/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But how does Speagram resolve ambiguities like this one? ;-) > Generally, Speagram would live with both interpretations until one of them fails or it gets a chance to ask the user. How would that be possible? I don't even know how to imagine such a thing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] MONISTIC, CLOSED-ENDED AI VS PLURALISTIC, OPEN-ENDED AGI
On 4/30/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The linguistic sign bears NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the signified. true The only signs that bear relation to, and to some extent reflect, reality and real things are graphics [maps/cartoons/geometry/ icons etc] and images [photos, statues, detailed drawings, sound recordings etc.]. What does "warm" look like? How about "angry" or "happy"? Can you draw a picture of "abstract" or "indeterminate"? I understand (i think) where you are coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly - up to the point where you seem to imply that a picture of something is the totality of its character. I don't believe that's what you are saying, but you did not specify how far your analogy should be taken. A picture is not worth a thousand words, it is worth an INFINITY of words. Careful throwing around INFINITY like that :) Last time I looked, my desktop resolution was only so high, and that while there are a great number of permutations of meaning that can be inferred from those pictures, eventually the value curve of all that can be said probably looks logarithmic. Concepts (should?) grow like crystals, with new ideas along the incomplete edges. They're never really complete as long as new ideas continue to be incorporated, but only those (ideas) that follow the existing structure and pattern can fit. Does anyone have a more formal definition of the concept tree mentioned earlier in this thread? (A url to a whitepaper or something would be great) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] MONISTIC, CLOSED-ENDED AI VS PLURALISTIC, OPEN-ENDED AGI
On 4/30/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: it is in the human brain. Every concept must be a tree, which can continually be added to and fundamentally altered. Every symbolic concept must be grounded in a set of graphics and images, which are provisional and can continually be redrawn. That plastic template, as with all concepts, is permanently open to revision. Probably, all the visualisations of house that your brain produces And that is how we learn language - and indeed all our knowledge about the world - provisionally. Everyone's personal history of learning is a history of continually having ascribed meanings corrected. graphics, image, redrawn, visualizations - all indicative of a high degree of visual-spatial thinking. I'm curious, are your own AGI efforts are modelled on this mode of thought? I ask because I wonder if the machine intelligence we build will "envision" concepts in an analogous way to our own processes. If we (humans) currently visualize because that part of our brain evolved the largest bandwidth and working set out of necessity for survival, what pressure would facilitate that evolution in the machine we build? (or is it by design that we model the machine after our own thought process) Is the notion of a 'template' too fixed even in plastic? Though it requires a lot of computation, I imagine the probability would need to be calculated in real-time at each point in context. If the root node of the 'house' tree were evaluated for a realtor it would weight the leaves associated with structural information and property value more highly than if the 'house' concept were evaluated as a sibling idea to 'home.' Essentially every fact needs a confidence metric to determine how well it relates to the current scope of investigation. In the case of double and triple entendre, we humans (sometimes) delight in the unexpected relation across different contexts by way of a particular word's multiple potential meanings. Everyone's personal history of relationships between ideas is what makes each of us unique. In the elephant/chair scenario, my own childhood of watch cartoons prevailed in visualizing a context where an elephant in a chair was not a physics problem. If an AGI is raised/trained on cartoons, it will probably develop a wildly different perspective of subjective reality than if it trained in a military application. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] HOW ADAPTIVE ARE YOU [NOVAMENTE] BEN?
On 4/29/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is something fascinating going on here - if you could suspend your desire for precision, you might see that you are at least half-consciously offering contributions as well as objections. (Tune in to your constructive side). suspended. I do most of my best thinking half-consciously. You made an interesting point about the response that AI should have for the directive, "Move from A to B or D" - That is to ask for clarification. I think that is an important point. We seem to expect "computers" to correctly do our bidding even when we aren't sure what we actually want. (ex: Google has to guess what I'm looking for if I enter "AJAX", since I just looked up javascript I am probably not interested in the cleaning product) There are context clues, which are important to grasp - which I think is what Richard was suggesting (AGI had better be able to figure out context because people assume so much) It seems extra daunting to expect a machine to divine this context when a human can simply ask for it. fwiw - Mike, thanks for understanding my point over just the words in my post. I feel it is the sender/author's responsibility to write clearly in order that the message content is easily consumed. It's the reader's task to overcome the transmission errors and to fill in the gaps where the sender is unclear. I believe this is a truism that must be on the table when attempting to build machine intelligence which interacts with humans. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] HOW ADAPTIVE ARE YOU [NOVAMENTE] BEN?
On 4/29/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The idea that human beings should constrain themselves to a simplified, artificial kind of speech in order to make life easier for an AI, is one of those Big Excuses that AI developers have made, over the years, to cover up the fact that they don't really know how to build a true AI. It is a temptation to be resisted. No retreat to hard-coded blocks world programs. You're right - we should continue to use language poorly as is our right as humans to communicate past each other without identifying the failure of either the sender or the recipient for message integrity. I see now how that makes much more sense for email lists, so it should apply well to "true AGI" I'm not exactly clear on "true AGI" - do any humans possess this trait? ok, I know there's a snarky tone here, but I thought I had a valid point (I'm sure I'll be shown my error soon enough) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] HOW ADAPTIVE ARE YOU [NOVAMENTE] BEN?
On 4/29/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: He has a simple task: "Move from A to B or D". But the normal answer "Walk it" is for whatever reason no good, blocked. Disambiguate- 1. Move from starting point A to either B or D 2. Move from either A to B or take another option D I feel we should practice unambiguous speech with each other so we can have some hope of conversation with machine intelligence. The less guess it has to do about what we actually meant, the more productive the dialog can be. It helps between people too. humorous example: My wife and I had finished a discussion about various ways to contain the dog in our yard. After a long pause, I asked, "How would you feel about fencing in our yard?" She threw me a shocked expression and asked, "Are you challenging me to a duel?" I laughed, "I meant: putting a fence around the yard, she understood: a sword fight with rapiers" - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Uh oh ... someone has beaten Novamente to the end goal!
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Holding a new computer at your home such as myself will take very little space( less than 2 square meters) and this will never waste your time (you can use your new computer whenever you want) and you will be of course able to continue your private life with your friends/ boy friend without any change Sounds like a new way to get distributed IP addresses for SPAM/ddos - "Put my uploaded consciousness contained in this 2 square meter box on your network and go about your normal life" Yeah, right. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
On 4/28/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And what if I say to you: "sorry but the elephant did sit on the chair" - how would you know that I could be right? I could assign a probability of truthfulness to this statement that is dependant on how many other assertions you have made and the frequency with which those assertions have proven to be accurate models of the eventual reality they predicted or described. If after a sufficient number of occurrences of truthful assertions, there is a level of trust associated to the believability of your future statements. Suppose you intentionally lied to me. Future probability assignments would have to include the measurement of your proven inaccuracy. Hopefully a system built on this principle has some failsafe for statements like "I am lying." except in rare cases no such rules. You've actually made them up - and your brain did that for you by using its imagination. It's only by imagination that you can work out which of thousands of animals can or can't sit in a Is imagination derived from earlier encounters with elephants and chairs? My original mental picture was a cartoonish elephant in an equally cartoonish chair. I had no details of weight or physics - I assumed the elephant was the primary object of the sentence and therefor the chair would need to accomodate the elephant. If the sentence were "the chair was sat on by an elephant" it would have conjured a different meaning due to the primacy of the objects. This is where an unambiguous language would help prevent the parse errors inherent in english (or possibly even human language in general) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] AGI and Web 2.0
On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How does the new phenomenon of web-based collaboration change the way we build an AGI? I feel that something is amiss in a business model if we don't make use of some form of "Web 2.0 ". A problem is that we cannot take universal ballots every time on every trivial issue. So probably we need a special adminstrative committee for decision-making. I think the primitive prototype should be about inter-node communication methodology. A basic API for "Tell me what you know about X, Y, Z" would allow nodes utilizing different storage or processing methods to interact with each other. ex: I ask for information about some process flow and I get back a chart. I am not particularly good at consuming a chart, so I store this content as possibly relevant but currently less than ideally consumable. Eventually I may develop a way to get the meaning out of that media format. Meanwhile if someone asks ME for that same process flow, I can communicate in my more 'native' expression of words/paragraphs/etc. and simply pass along the chart. That consumer might prefer the chart. Assuming I pass along the chart with proper source identification, I have communicated not only my knowledge of the subject, but a potential forward reference for further query. (conceivably the source of that chart might have gained new information on the subject while I was storing it) whether nodes represent people in a social network or neurons in a brain, I believe the interconnect protocol is what makes the whole greater than the mere sum of the parts. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] general weak ai
On 3/9/07, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This understanding assumes a "you" who does the "pointing", which is a central controller not assumed in the Society of Mind. To see intelligence as a toolbox, we would have to assume that somehow the saw, hammer, etc. can figure out what they should do in building the deck all by themselves. with a million monkeys on a million typewriters in a million years... Do you think those monkeys would be any more likely to produce "X" if they had a any idea what A, B, and C were? Even if they fail at producing work X, the efforts P, Q, R would likley be entertaining or useful. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] general weak ai
On 3/6/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well what is intelligence if not a collection of tools? One of the hardest Thinking of a mind as a toolkit is misleading. A mind must contain a collection of tools that synergize together so as to give rise to the appropriate high-level emergent structures and dynamics. The tools are there, but focusing on their individual and isolated functionality is not terribly productive in an AGI context. Yeah, if I leave a workbench worth of carpentry tools on a pile of lumber, I don't expect to have an emergent deck arise... (though that'd be cool) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Development Environments for AI (a few non-religious comments!)
On 2/21/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The language thread has been reasonably abstruse already, but proposing doing AI by stored procedures in relational databases backed by ~10 ms access time devices... Hey, why not tapes? I think you could implement a reasonably competent Turing machine with an Ultrium tape library. Why not implementing it on that? You can't beat the costs per bit. As to 10^23 words/s, well... I'm working on an AI driven by water wheel and memory stored as rubber ducks floating in a pond. The current problems I'm faced with is maintaining accurate tracking of regional rainfall (for both the wheel and the pond) as well as minimizing wind effects on the ducks on the pond. I'm surprised anyone has such strong opinions about what absolutely will not work considering that we do not have evidence of what absolutely will work. Clearly there are conceivable tasks that would sub-optimal to do in a commercial database. Isn't the whole idea of modular development that the performance failure of a DB can be managed after the consumer of that data shows significant promise? Or do we have to assume that AI developers should write every module from scratch? I wouldn't want to spend considerable effort building a rigid or formal knowledge base because I'd feel that I should stick with it in order to justify its cost even after it appeared that the engine (brain?) might be better with a different KB. Since there is still no agreed-upon right way to do A[G]I, doesn't it make sense to be able to rapidly try as many different potential solutions as possible in order to assess each method's promise? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Re: Languages for AGI
On 2/18/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: personal toolbox). The programmers who are ending up out of work are the ones who keep re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Thinking about the amount of redundant (wasted) effort involved with starting from scratch on an AI project, I considered an old adage and modified it: If you are not standing on the shoulders of giants, you are likely to be trampled by them. .. though I guess in the case of AGI, even giants have only taken a few tentative steps - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Priors and indefinite probabilities
On 2/11/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We don't use Bayes Nets in Novamente because Novamente's knowledge network is loopy. And the peculiarities that allow standard Bayes net belief propagation to work in standard loopy Bayes nets, don't hold up I know what you mean by the term "loopy" but you should be careful how you use it in casual conversation else you risk painting a very different picture of NM. :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Probabilistic consistency
On 2/7/07, Kevin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My program crashes, prints something about 8192. My program crashes, prints something about 10001. My program crashes, prints something about 3721. I'd wonder if you've seen the movie "Pi" and perhaps taken it too seriously :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Project proposal: MindPixel 2
On 1/19/07, Joel Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's been a while since I looked at Lojban or your Lojban++, so was wondering if english sentences translate well into Lojban without the sentence ordering changing? I.e. given two english sentences, are there any situations where in lojban the sentences would be more correctly put in the reverse order? If there are, then manually inserting placemarks in the original and translated version could be used to delineate between regions of meaning and assist an AI in reading the text while learning english. I bet it'd be a great way of learning Lojban too! ;) Lojban/Lojban++ is inherently an explicit language, right? Then given an environment of objects and actions, the AI's-avatar could be asked to perform actions that we pick from an interface. How many person-hours of interaction have gone into telling a guy in a chicken suit to flap his arms, jump, etc.? Imagine how much more fun people would have with a greater range of action/object potential. If this were a game along the same vein as the Google Image labeler, where another participant verified that the AI correctly completed the requested action the "language" could be more easily learned- English expressed from person1 to person2, lojban++ from person2 expressed to AI, confirmation from person1 that AI completed request. Win for the AI to see english and lojban++ of the same action, Win for person2 to have direct experiential learning by translating to lojban++ (I/we need interactive learning mechanisms to be fluent enough in lojban++ to think clearly in it) and person1 gets the same kicks as telling the man in the chicken suit to hop on one foot. (I never really understood that, but people forwarded that URL a lot) Ben, I used lojban++ in this example and was specifically thinking of NM because you have expressed (near-)readiness for virtual embodiment. I would love to be able to interact with your baby via an avatar of my own, but I am currently less than baby-capable with respect to lojban++. (Although this semester I am taking Discrete math, so that may help with the 'logical' thinking) Frankly, I feel I need to better understand how my own brain works before I can attempt to build a copy. Hopefully as my skills rise to meet this challenge, the interface tools will mature to lower the prerequisites for involvement. humour: I originally spelled "Labeller" and gmail's spellcheck offered "libeller" - which would be a fun google product, wouldn't it? "Image Libeller" - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] SOTA
On 1/6/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Needless to say, I don't consider cleaning up the house a particularly interesting goal for AGI projects. I can well imagine it being done by a narrow AI system with no capability to do anything besides manipulate simple objects, navigate, etc. Being able to understand natural language commands pertaining to cleaning up the house is a whole other kettle of fish, of course. This, as opposed to the actual house-cleaning, appears to be an "AGI-hard" problem... But if the AGI were built, wouldn't it be the intelligence to pretty much the entire world of human-moron level housecleaning robots? All they'd need is wifi to get instructions from the main brain. But then a real AGI would likely become the main brain for just about ever process control program we use, so the term quickly changes from human-moron level to human-level moron. :) I really want to see a central traffic computer take driving away from all the unqualified (or disinterested) drivers on the roads. I'd really like to see companies get incentives to allow "knowledge workers" work from home offices to save commute time and fuel resources, but until that happens (yeah, the employer wants to give up their sense of control?) it would be nice to reclaim that time by allowing me to focus on what *I* want rather than on driving. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Sophisticated models of spiking neural networks.
in general, how do we indicate the odd one out of that set? Sure it's "obvious" that the color is important in this case - but I see two circles and that the square is more similar to the circle(s) because of the higher number of sides. Therefor the triangle is the "odd one." What rules does an evolving neural net use for determining the pattern in order to determine the exception to the pattern? On 12/26/06, Nathan Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The training set should have problems of (at least) two forms to test my hypotheses: (1) after 'hearing' a sequence of pulses, reproduce them, and (2) after being presented with several images (e.g. red circle, red square, red triangle, green circle), indicate the odd one out. Being able to do either of them should show I'm on to something. Is that any help? I was reluctant to give too much away because it's a rather far fetched concept, but as you can see, the neurons have to be capable of doing a lot. I think I can justify taking this one of many options in neural networks, if only because no-one seems to have let the neurons themselves compete before. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: Re: Re: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
On 12/5/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Your reasoning is getting surreal. You seem to have a real difficulty in admitting that humans behave irrationally for a lot (most?) of the time. Don't you read newspapers? You can redefine rationality if you like to say that all the crazy people are behaving rationally within their limited scope, but what's the point? Just admit their behaviour is not rational. Human decisions and activities are mostly emotional and irrational. That's the way life is. Because life is uncertain and unpredictable, human decisions are based on best guesses, gambles and basic subconscious desires. "What's the point?" - I think that's an even better question than defining degrees of local rationality (good) vs irrationality (bad) The whole notion of arbitrarily defining subjective terms as good or better or bad seems foolish. If we're going to talk about evolutionary psychology as a motivator for actions and attribute reactions to stimuli or enviornmental pressures then it seems egocentric to apply labels like "rational" to any of the observations. Within the scope of these discussions, we put ourselves in a superior non-human point of view where we can discuss the "human decisions" like animals in a zoo. For some threads it is useful to approach the subject that way. For most it illustrates a particular trait of the biased selection of those humans who participate in this list. hmm... just an observation... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] RSI - What is it and how fast?
On 12/4/06, Brian Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you cause your brain to temporarily shut down your visual cortex and other associated visual parts, reallocate them to expanding your working memory by four times its current size in order to help you juggle consciously the bits you need to solve a particularly tough problem? No. I can close my eyes in order to visualize a geometric association or spatial relationship... When I fall asleep and dream about a solution to a problem that I am working on, there are 'alternate' cognitive processes being performed. I know... I'm just playing devil's advocate. :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: Re: [agi] Understanding Natural Language
On 11/27/06, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem is that this thing, "on", is not definable in n-space via operations like AND, OR, NOT, etc. It seems that "on" is not definable by *any* hypersurface, so it cannot be learned by classifiers like feedforward neural networks or SVMs. You can define "apple on table" in n-space, which is the set of all configurations of apples on tables; but there is no way to define "X is on Y" as a hypervolume, and thus to make it learnable. perhaps my view of a hypersurface is wrong, but wouldn't a subset of the dimensions associated with an object be the physical dimensions? (ok, virtual physical dimensions) Is "On" determined by a point of contact between two objects? (A is on B and B is on A) Or is there a dependancy on the direction of gravity? (A is on B, but B is on the floor) You say that "on" could not be learned - why not? In this case it would seem that the meaning would effectively be "cultural" and the meaning would depend on the semantic usage/intent of the tutors.. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Understanding Natural Language
On 11/26/06, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But I really think that the metric properties of the spaces continue to help even at the very highest levels of abstraction. I'm willing to spend some time giving it a shot, anyway. So we'll see! I was thinking about the N-space representation of an idea... Then I thought about the tilting table analogy Richard posted elsewhere (sorry, I'm terrible at citing sources) Then I starting wondering what would happen if the N-space geometric object were not an idea, but the computing machine - responding to the surface upon which it found itself. So if the 'computer' (brain, etc.) were a simple sphere like a marble affected by gravity on a wobbly tabletop, the phase space would be straightforward. It's difficult to conceive of an N dimensional object in an N+m dimensional tabletop being acted upon by some number of gravity analogues. Is this at least in the right direction of what you are proposing? Have you projected the dimensionality of the human brain? That would at least give a baseline upon which to speculate - especially considering that we have enough difficulty understanding "perspective" dimension on a 2D painting, let alone conceive of (and articulate) dimensions higher than our own. (assuming the incompleteness theorem isn't expressly prohibiting it) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
On 11/22/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, in the language I normally use to discuss AI planning, this would mean that 1)keeping charged is a supergoal 2)The system knows (via hard-coding or learning) that finding the recharging socket ==> keeping charged If "charged" becomes momentarily plastic enough to include the analog to the kind of feeling I have after a good discussion, then the supergoal of being "charged" might include the subgoal of attempting conversation with others, no? Would you see that as an interesting development, or a potential for a future mess of "inappropriate" associations? Would you try to correct this attachment? Directly, or through reconditioning? I'll stop here because I see this easily sliding into a question of AI-parenting styles... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
I'm not sure I follow every twist in this thread. No... I'm sure I don't follow every twist in this thread. I have a question about this compression concept. Compute the number of pixels required to graph the Mandelbrot set at whatever detail you feel to be a sufficient for the sake of example. Now describe how this 'pattern' is compressed. Of course the ideal compression is something like 6 bytes. Show me a 6 byte jpg of a mandelbrot :) Is there a concept of compression of an infinite series? Or was the term "bounding" being used to describe the attractor around which the values tends to fall? chaotic attractor, statistical median, etc. they seem to be describing the same tendency of human pattern recognition of different types of data. Is a 'symbol' an idea, or a handle on an idea? Does this support the mechanics of how concepts can be built from agreed-upon ideas to make a new token we can exchange in communication that represents the sum of the constituent ideas? If this symbol-building process is used to communicate ideas across a highly volatile link (from me to you) then how would these symbols be used by a single computation machine? (Is that a hard takeoff situation, where the near zero latency turns into an exponential increase in symbol complexity per unit time?) If you could provide some feedback as a reality check on these thoughts, I'd appreciate the clarification... thanks. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Information Learning Systems
On 10/27/06, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am working on another piece now that will scan through news articles and pull small bits of information out of them, such as: Iran's nuclear program is only aimed at generating power. The process of uranium enrichment can be used to generate electricity. Iran's uranium enrichment program aims only to generate electricty.What do you do when the intended meaning of "power" is "political power"? English is pretty unintuitive, especially when it comes to the clever use of double-entendre that many intellectuals enjoy. If (from this example) electricity were confused with political power, it would make a huge mess of understanding. I have no suggestion for a solution, I am just curious how disambiguation works in your system. This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] [META] Is there anything we can do to keep junk out of the AGI Forum?
On 7/26/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The bane of mailing lists is well-intentioned but stupid people...not only mailing lists; I'd say they're a bane everywhere. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] procedural vs declarative knowledge
On 6/2/06, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rule of thumb: First get it working, doing what you want. Thenoptimize. When optimizing, first check your algorithms, then check tosee where time is actually spent. Apply extensive optimization only to the most used 10% (or less) of the code. If you need to optimize morethan that, then you need to either redesign from the base, or get afaster machine.Expect that you will need to redesign pieces so often while in development that it's better to chose the form of code that's easiest tounderstand, redesign, and fix than to optimize it. Only whendevelopment is essentially complete is it time to give optimization forspeed or size serious consideration. That said, do you agree that some applications call for a 'ground up' build mentality? For example, adding "security" after an application is nearly finished is usually a terrible approach (despite being incredibly common) To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] procedural vs declarative knowledge
After reading Ben's response I had to ask- what possible value would there be in NOT pre-compiling reusable procedures? Advocating a strict adherence to a single type of general purpose container when there is a clear advantage to specialization sounds like idealistic dogma. When my existence is threatened by nanopathogens, I definitely want protective AI making decisions that lead quickly to effective action. Those extra few hundred clock ticks may be the difference between my continued consciousness and becoming raw material for a nanoswarm. (Hopefully by the time this scenario is an actual threat I will have long since moved on to more durable/resilient hardware)On 5/30/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do you store procedural and declarative in 2 different places? It sounds like cheating because you may store the entire procedure for solving some fixed problems instead of searching for solutions in the declarative knowledgebase. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Google wants AI for search... The first step..
They have a long road ahead. I recently sent an email via gmail that contained the word "computronium." the google spellchecker (while slickly executed) was unable to identify this word. I googled it, and the first link was a wikipedia reference. So if Google Spellcheck can't ' just*GoogleIt' when it doesn't know a word, then their integration efforts may already have major hurdles to overcome. (my two cents) On 5/22/06, Danny G. Goe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fellow AI ... "Seems that Google wants a search engine that knows exactly what you want"... http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article570273.ece I doubt once that google gets this far they will stop there. They have the means and the structure to do AI totally. The question remains is who is going to get AI developed first and what will they use it for? We live in interesting times. These future events will have a most profound effect upon societies around the world. Comments? Dan Goe To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
