Re: [agi] Finding analogies
Dennis: I just want to note, that Google does exactly that: it finds analogies to your search queries in any context Er, really? Some examples? If you ask Google to find *existing* analogies, yes. If you ask it for cool as a --- it may come up with various known analogies - cucumber/ ice etc. But the point of AGI and human intelligence is they should/can seek and find *new* analogies. Will Google be able to come up with as cool as cold steel on your penis? I think not. P.S. Almost totally O/T - why are there no women on this forum or, it would seem, in 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=8660244id_secret=67520209-846edb
Re: Re[8]: [agi] Funding AGI research
On 21/11/2007, Dennis Gorelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Benjamin, That's massive amount of work, but most AGI research and development can be shared with narrow AI research and development. There is plenty overlap btw AGI and narrow AI but not as much as you suggest... That's only because that some narrow AI products are not there yet. Could you describe a piece of technology that simultaneously: - Is required for AGI. - Cannot be required part of any useful narrow AI. My theory of intelligence is something like this. Intelligence requires the changing of programmatic-structures in an arbitrary fashion, so that we can learn, and learn how to learn. This is because I see intelligence as the means to solve the problem solving problem. It does not solve one problem but changes and reconfigures itself to solve whatever problems it faces, within its limited hardware/software and energy constraints. This arbitrary change can result in the equivalent of bugs and viruses, this means there needs to be ways for these to be removed and prevented from spreading. This requires there be a way to distinguish good programs from bad, so that the good programs are allowed to remove bugs from others, and the bad programs prevented from being able to alter other programs. Solving this problem is non-trivial and requires thinking about computer systems in a different way to other weak AI problems. Narrow AI is generally solving a single problem, and so does not need to change so drastically and so does not need the safeguards. It can just concentrate on solving its problem. Will Pearson - 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=8660244id_secret=67564879-97ae32
Re: Re[8]: [agi] Funding AGI research
William P: My theory of intelligence is something like this. Intelligence requires the changing of programmatic-structures in an arbitrary fashion, so that we can learn, and learn how to learn. Well, you're getting v. close. But be careful, because you'll upset Ben and Pei not to mention cog sci. The moment you make a mechanical mind arbitrary to any extent, it ceases to be deterministic. Tch tch. And the moment you make the application of programs arbitrary, well, they cease to be programs in any true sense. Shock, horror. Perhaps the only way such a mind could function is if it only had a rough idea rather than a precise set of programmed instructions for how to get from A to Z and conduct any activity - a precis rather than a program of what to do - and would have to freely/arbitrarily combine steps and sub-routes to see/learn what worked and reached the goal. As scientists do. And technologists do. And computer programmers in writing their programs do. And human beings do period. Yes, that would require intelligence in the full sense. P.S. And, as you indicate, such a machine would only have a rough idea of how to *learn* as well as directly conduct an activity - it wouldn't have any preprogrammed set of instructions for learning and correcting mistakes, either. 'What then, I thought myself, if I [Robot Daneel Olivaw] were utterly without laws as humans are? What if I could make no clear decision as to what response to make to some given set of conditions? It would be unbearable, and I do not willingly think of it. Isaac Asimov, Robots and Empire - 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=8660244id_secret=67599979-79e74d
Re: [agi] Funding AGI research
Dennis Gorelik wrote: Richard, specific technical analysis of the AGI problem that I have made indicates that nothing like a 'prototype' is even possible until after a massive amount of up-front effort. I probably misunderstand you first time. I thought you meant that this massive amount of up-front efforts must be made in single project. But you probably don't mean that, right? I agree that there is massive amount of up-front effort required for delivering AGI. But this amount can be split into separate pieces. All these pieces can be done in separate projects (weak AI projects). Every such project can have its own business sense and would be able to pay for themselves. Good example of such weak AI project would be Google. That's why I claim that huge up-front investment can be avoided, even though there is massive amount of up-front efforts. Do you agree? Not quite. I had something very specific in mind when I said that, because I was meaning that in a complex systems AGI project, there is a need to do a massive, parallel search of a space of algorithms. This is what you might call a data collection phase. It is because of the need for this data collection (*before* a prototype can be built). It could be done by many groups working in parallel, but that would still have to be coordinated (not separate companies all trying to develop separate projects). So, alas, it really would need massive effort in one place. Billions of dollars would be exactly what I need: I have a need for a large bank of parallelized exploration machines, and I have a need for large numbers of research assistants to undertake specific tasks. That's what you need, but would that guarantee AGI delivery? Nobody can ever guarantee such a thing. But on the other hand, I see in my plan a more systematic, structured and predictable plan to reach AGI than any other approach that I am aware of. I think it is as near to guaranteed as it is possible to get because it reduces the unknowns to a set of structured attacks. Richard Loosemore - 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=8660244id_secret=67685200-098d21
Re: Re[8]: [agi] Funding AGI research
--- Dennis Gorelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you describe a piece of technology that simultaneously: - Is required for AGI. - Cannot be required part of any useful narrow AI. A one million CPU cluster. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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=8660244id_secret=67809185-13d25e
Re: Re[8]: [agi] Funding AGI research
On Nov 22, 2007 12:59 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dennis Gorelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you describe a piece of technology that simultaneously: - Is required for AGI. - Cannot be required part of any useful narrow AI. A one million CPU cluster. Is a required part of Google, which is very useful narrow AI. The main piece of technology I reckon is required to make more general progress is a software framework, which would be useful for narrow AI but is only essential if you want to go beyond that. - 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=8660244id_secret=67839995-f106a4
Re: Re[4]: [agi] Danger of getting what we want [from AGI]
--- Dennis Gorelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the analogies, my point is that AGI will quickly evolve to invisibility from a human-level intelligence. I think you underestimate how quickly performance deteriorates with the growth of complexity. AGI systems would have lots of performance problems in spite of fast hardware. No, I was not aware of that. What is the relationship? Unmodified humans, on the other hand would be considerably more advanced than now just because all AGI civilization technologies will be available for humans as well. So the gap won't be really that big. To visualize potential differences try to compare income of humans with IQ 100 and humans with IQ 150. The difference is not really that big. Try to visualize an Earth turned into computronium with an IQ of 10^38. The problem is that we can't. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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=8660244id_secret=67828293-015f33
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=8660244id_secret=67862446-cc7a80
