Re: [agi] AGI interests
On 3/27/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One thing that I really don't understand is why so many people I've talked to about AGI insist on working for free. Do you have a source of finance? This is not a rhetorical question; if you have, I'd be very interested in working for money. - 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] AGI interests
>Everyone on this list is quite different. What about the rest of you, what are your interests? as a programmer: skilling up in cognitive systems in a fairly gradual way so I'm ready and able to contribute when human-level (though not necessarily -like) reasoning becomes a solved problem in the mathematics|theory domain and needs competent programmers (which I'm very far from being at this point, even after 10 years in the field) as a fan of AGI: watching the smart guys (like Novamente) do the real work of laying out the problem domain in theory and positing solutions that make the leap between sound logic and running code. I'm not as happy with all the blowhard action from others who are seemingly incompetent in regards to making the leaps between undertanding_cogniton->implementable_theory_of_thought->code->real_AGI_results but am aware that the more people who are trying the better and as someone with -zero- theories am aware that I'm a mere critic so -try- to keep my scepticism to myself. as a techie: scepticism. I think the 'small code' and 'small hardware' people are kidding themselves. The CS theory|code we have today is pretty much universally a complete bucket of sh!t and the hardware & networking (while better) is still kinder toys compared to where it could be. We are just -so- damn far away from say being able to build hardware/software into things like ubiquitous (i.e. motes everywhere) nanotech. Thinking that a semi-trivial set of code loops will somehow become meta-cognitive is ridiculous and a tcpip socket does not a synapse make. as a singulatarian: big fan; I think it's inevitable, and that things are definitely starting to snowball - see http://del.icio.us/kevin/futurism. Can't say I'm buying into any 'when' predictions quite yet though. as a person: nihilism & the human condition. crime, drugs, debauchery. self-destructive and life-endangering behaviour; rejection of social norms. the world as I know it is a rather petty, woeful place and I pretty much think modern city-dwelling life is a stenchy wet mouthful of arse - not to say that living and dying in depravity and pain like every one of my ancestors wasn't a whole lot worse. I'm far from finding much in the Modern|West that is particularly engaging, but luckily enough also think the Old|East was even more pathetic and that naturalist hippies should be shot for their banal bovinity. I get somewhat of a kick out of the fact that I might be risking the chance to live forever by being such a societal refusenik. - 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] small code small hardware
Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 >>> kevin.osborne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007/03/28 15:57 >>> > as a techie: scepticism. I think the 'small code' and 'small hardware' > people are kidding themselves. Kevin, you're most probably right there. But remember that us small code people *have* to have this belief in order to justify ourselves working as individuals / tiny teams often during spare time and snatched moments. As a small code person I think the chance of a small code project achieving AGI is probably <1% (still probably an optimistic estimate) that that of a larger, coordinated, well-funded and focussed research group. But some of us are loners, like it that way, keep dreaming and thinking away. Some of us have also seen how some really innovative ideas tend to get lost in larger groups due to the normalisation/group pressure. And we take heart in the fact that many of the big advances in history (i.e. the big ideas) were typically produced by single individuals or tiny teams. Not so sure about the small hardware bit. Singularity software will require massive distributed hardware IMHO but prototypes should run fine on "tomorrow's" PCs. When I get technical enough, I'll plan my nebulous design/architecture around ~2012 hardware: i.e. a couple of 64-processor 256GB RAM machines - gives me a realistic time horizon and something concrete. >as a person: nihilism & the human condition. crime, drugs, debauchery. >self-destructive and life-endangering behaviour; rejection of social >norms. the world as I know it is a rather petty, woeful place [...] hey i liked that bit ;-) most of the time i think the world is a great place tho. But that's probably because I'm living in paradise^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCape Town ;-) Jean-Paul - 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] small code small hardware
Jean-Paul Van Belle responded to Kevin Osborne: >> as a techie: scepticism. I think the 'small code' >> and 'small hardware' people are kidding themselves. > Kevin, you're most probably right there. > But remember that us small code people *have* to > have this belief in order to justify ourselves > working as individuals / tiny teams often during > spare time and snatched moments. As a small code > person I think the chance of a small code > project achieving AGI is probably <1% > (still probably an optimistic estimate) that > that of a larger, coordinated, well-funded and > focussed research group. But some of us are loners, > like it that way, keep dreaming and thinking away. Right on, Bro! (mon frere). Here is my small code, small hardware work of today: Today we gear up to do our first Mind.Forth programming since the 18jun06C.F version that has been on the Web since 18 June 2006. Back then, we switched to coding the JavaScript AI Mind that had not been updated since two years earlier, in 2004. Initially we worked on the timing problems of the main JSAI aLife loop, and then we worked on bringing the JSAI up to par with Mind.Forth AI. We were especially concerned with porting the Mind.Forth dynamic tutorial mode into the JavaScript AI, which had previously only a rotating tutorial message display and now has both the static but rotating message display and the impressively dynamic display. After coding the dynamic JSAI tutorial, we set about fixing bugs that had long been hidden in the JavaScript AI code, and were probably hidden also in the Mind.Forth code. At the same time, we were trying hard to implement slosh-over in the JavaScript AI, which we finally achieved in the 20mar07A.html version of the JSAI. Afterwards we made plans to further improve the JSAI before moving on to resume coding Mind.Forth, but yesterday we realized that the time to update Mind.Forth is now, when the JSAI has taught us what to do. It would be too risky and too imprecise to try to perfect the JSAI in advance of upgrading the Forth AI. Something could happen that might long or forever prevent us from getting Mind.Forth to work right, and it would be hard to know precisely when to stop improving the JSAI. The success of slosh-over in the JSAI is precisely when to code in Forth. We may find that we once again get far advanced in Forth, or we may be able to code Mind.Forth and the JSAI simultaneously now that since 20.MAR.2007 we finally know what we are doing in either language. Today we are running out of time and we have only just begun. First we spent precious time compiling a C:\MAR01Y07\JSAI\chglog01.txt file of "Changelog entries of the JavaScript Mind.html AI program." We need such a summary of our JSAI work so that we will know what we need to code in Forth. We may not have to repeat the exact order of the JavaScript changes, since the languages are different and since we may be able to take short-cuts & achieve slosh-over quicker in Forth. Next we spent quite some time updating our C:\MAR01Y07\JSAI\mfpjtemp.html file today so that it will be easier to do Mind.Forth coding from now on. We were updating the template file & this "fp070328" page simultaneously as we saw exactly what we needed to change to make our work easier. Upshot: We ran out of time for now & we need to monitor our Web situation. Arthur -- http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html P.S. Ben Goertzel runs a big team but he has to clean the turtle tank and do other jobs in his embourgeoisement. - 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] Why C++ ?
rooftop8000 wrote: -very hard to "write code that writes code" compared to LISP, Ruby etc -very hard to safely run code i think. in java you have security things to execute code in safe sandboxes, in C++ any array can just run outside its bounds -in LISP any ruby and the likes, you can just execute 1 line of code (interactively), in C++ you have to go through a big compile cycle The only thing C++ is good for, is writing efficient code if you really need it --- "kevin.osborne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, these points are significant, but not determinant. I could easily imagine a project that used C/C++ for the code that needed to be fast and Python or Ruby for code that needed to be flexible. Similarly for Java and Groovy/Jython. (Or, if gcj is mature enough, simple Python/Ruby.) It would be very nice to use one language throughout the project, but I don't believe that at the moment any single language is both mature enough and both flexible enough and fast enough to satisfy. I'm keeping an eye on D however (Digital Mars D http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html ). Currently it's too incoherent to think seriously about, with the most basic library coming in two incompatible versions, but this shouldn't last too long. (Well, it's already too long, but probably not more than a month or two more.) It seems generally both fast enough and flexible enough. There are some unavoidable stiff places which all efficient languages seem to have (perhaps not Lisp or Haskell...I don't know them well enough to comment). - 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] small code small hardware
On 3/28/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, you're most probably right there. But remember that us small code people *have* to have this belief in order to justify ourselves working as individuals / tiny teams often during spare time and snatched moments. A very good point. But I think there's a way to reconcile the belief we need with realism: small framework, big content. That is, I think if the right framework were created by an individual or small team, it would then be possible to get a community effort started on providing the required large volume of content. - 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