Re: [agi] Free AI Courses at Stanford
Hi List, Also interesting to some of you may be VideoLectures.net, which offers lots of interesting lectures. Although not all are of Stanford quality, still I found many interesting lectures by respected lecturers. And there are LOTS (625 at the moment) of lectures about Machine Learning... :) http://videolectures.net/Top/Computer_Science/ Algorithmic Information Theory (2) Algorithms and Data Structures (4) Artificial Intelligence (6) Bioinformatics (45) Chemoinformatics (1) Complexity Science (24) Computer Graphics (2) Computer Vision (41) Cryptography and Security (4) Databases (1) Data Mining (56) Data Visualisation (18) Decision Support (3) Evolutionary Computation (3) Fuzzy Logic (4) Grid Computing (1) Human Computer Interaction (10) Image Analysis (47) Information Extraction (30) Information Retrieval (40) Intelligent Agents (4) Interviews (54) Machine Learning (625) Natural Language Processing (9) Network Analysis (27) Robotics (23) Search Engines (5) Semantic Web (175) Software and Tools (12) Spatial Data Structures (1) Speech Analysis (9) Text Mining (37) Web Mining (19) Web Search (2) On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone! ... Links to all the courses being offered are here: http://www.deviceguru.com/2008/09/17/stanford-frees-cs-robotics-courses/ Cheers, Brad --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the 'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of AGI safety and/or the prevention of abuse may indeed be necessary one day. Err, ... but not legal. What do you mean? The SIAI and Novamente hold the copyright for OpenCog code, and are perfectly within their legal rights to change the terms of the license of SIAI-distributed source code. Of course changes cannot be retroactively applied to source code already distributed, and there are no plans to make any license changes, but such changes can be made perfectly legally. Also of course the SIAI would need to be in a position of significant influence (like, say, employing key developers and driving key progress or holding contracts with corporate/government users or exerting influence over commercial policy or government regulation, etc.) for any license changes to be relevant in a software economy where anyone with sufficient skills and influence could maintain a fork using the old license terms. One of many obstacles in the current legal framework worth considering is that machine-generated things (like the utterances or self-recorded thoughts of an AGI) are uncopyrightable and banished into a legal no- mans-land. There is simply no existing legal framework to handle the persons or products originating from AGIs. Law is built on precedent, and the precedent is that works produced by software are copyrightable. If I write a book using an open-source word-processor, I can claim copyright to that book. If I press a button that causes an open-source AGI to write a book, (possibly based on a large collection of input data that I gave it) then I can claim ownership of the resulting work. Original works produced by software as a tool where a human operator is involved at some stage is a different case from original works produced by software exclusively and entirely under its own direction. The latter has no precedent. No, the crux of the problem is not that the output of an AGI isn't copyrightable ... it is, based on the above precedent. The crux of the problem is that the AGI cannot be legally recognized as an individual, with rights. But even then, there *is* a legal work-around! Claiming a copyright and successfully defending that claim are different things. I agree that the non-person status of [some future] AGI is a bigger problem. Of course, a trans-human AGI is .. err.. will defacto find that it is not bound by human laws, and will find clever ways to protect itself, I doubt it will require the protection of humans. Recall -- laws are there to protect the weak from the strong. The strong don't really need protecting. AGIs will likely need protection from other AGIs, and I expect they will create AGI-society legal frameworks, perhaps similar to or originally based on human laws. I'm not worried about people enslaving AGI's; I'm worried about people being innocent bystanders, victimized by some sort of AGI shootout between the Chinese and American CIA -built AGI's (probably by means of some propaganda shootout, rather than a literal guns and bombs shootout. Modern warfare is also homesteading the noosphere) I believe that James's concerns cover both AGI mental torture (coercing or tricking a conscious entity into behavior which is sociopathic or criminal or otherwise immoral) as a heinous act in itself and also the 'crossfire' concerns you raised. -dave --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] uncertain logic criteria
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pei, You are right, that does sound better than quick-and-dirty. And more relevant, because my primary interest here is to get a handle on what normative epistemology should tell us to conclude if we do not have time to calculate the full set of consequences to (uncertain) facts. Fully understand. As far as uncertain reasoning is concerned, NARS aims at a normative model that is optimal under certain restriction, and in this sense it is not inferior to probability theory, but designed under different assumptions. Especially, NARS is not an approximation or a second-rate substitute for probability theory, just as probability theory is not a second-rate substitute of binary logic. It is unfortunate that I had to use biased language, but probability is of course what I am familiar with... I suppose, though, that most of the terms could be roughly translated into NARS? Especially independence, and I should hope conditional independence as well. Collapsing probabilities can be restated as generally collapsing uncertainty. From page 80 of my book: We call quantities mutually independent of each other, when given the values of any of them, the remaining ones cannot be determined, or even bounded approximately. Thanks for the links. The reason for singling out these three, of course, is that they have already been discussed on this list. If anybody wants to point out any others in particular, that would be great. Understand. The UAI community used to be an interesting one, though in recent years it has been too much dominated by the Bayesians, who assume they already get the big picture right, and all the remain issues are in the details. For discussions on the fundamental properties of uncertain reasoning, I recommend the works of Henry Kyburg and Susan Haack. Pei --Abram On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Most people on this list should know about at least 3 uncertain logics claiming to be AGI-grade (or close): --Pie Wang's NARS Yes, I heard of this guy a few times, who happens to use the same name for his project as mine. ;-) Here is my list: 1. Well-defined uncertainty semantics (either probability theory or a well-argued alternative) Agree, and I'm glad that you mentioned this item first. 2. Good at quick-and-dirty reasoning when needed --a. Makes unwarranted independence assumptions --b. Collapses probability distributions down to the most probable item when necessary for fast reasoning --c. Uses the maximum entropy distribution when it doesn't have time to calculate the true distribution --d. Learns simple conditional models (like 1st-order markov models) for use later when full models are too complicated to quickly use As you admitted in the following, the language is biased. Using theory-neutral language, I'd say the requirement is to derive conclusions with available knowledge and resources only, which sounds much better than quick-and-dirty to me. 3. Capable of repairing initial conclusions based on the bad models through further reasoning --a. Should have a good way of representing the special sort of uncertainty that results from the methods above --b. Should have a repair algorithm based on that higher-order uncertainty As soon as you don't assume there is a model, this item and the above one become similar, which are what I called revision and inference, respectively, in http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/wang.uncertainties.ps The 3 logics mentioned above vary in how well they address these issues, of course, but they are all essentially descended from NARS. My impression is that as a result they are strong in (2a) and (3b) at least, but I am not sure about the rest. (Of course, it is hard to evaluate NARS on most of the points in #2 since I stated them in the language of probability theory. And, opinions will differ on (1).) Anyone else have lists? Or thoughts? If you consider approaches with various scope and maturity, there are much more than these three approaches, and I'm sure most of people working on them will claim that they are also general purpose. Interested people may want to browse http://www.auai.org/ and http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505787/description#description Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox:
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Original works produced by software as a tool where a human operator is involved at some stage is a different case from original works produced by software exclusively and entirely under its own direction. The latter has no precedent. Seeing as we're off the opencog list now, I'll address this. Maybe there's some theoretical difference in your head, but from a legal perspective there is none. I work for a megacorp, everything I code for them belongs to them. I am a human (sort of) but it doesn't really matter. If I wrote a program that generated random C code and one of them did something useful, that belongs to them too. If I put intelligence into the generator, it also belongs to them. The law doesn't care about the theoretical rights of machines. Claiming a copyright and successfully defending that claim are different things. What ways do you envision someone challenging the copyright? I agree that the non-person status of [some future] AGI is a bigger problem. [..] I believe that James's concerns cover both AGI mental torture (coercing or tricking a conscious entity into behavior which is sociopathic or criminal or otherwise immoral) as a heinous act in itself It's also not very realistic. If you want to exploit AGI for profit you can have a much better time of it if you simply don't make it some conscious entity that you have to trick or whatever. If you set its goals to be whatever specific task you want it to achieve, and then give it a new goal when it finishes the task, then it does your will, period. There's no need to make a mind that has its own agenda and would rather be doing something other than what you want it to do. There's no need to coerce an AGI. And this is the problem. Although some people have the goal of making an artificial person with all the richness and nuance of a sentient creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada yada.. some of us are just interested in making more intelligent systems to do automated tasks. For some reason people think we're going to do this by making an artificial person and then enslaving them.. that's not going to happen because its just not necessary. Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
2008/9/18 Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And this is the problem. Although some people have the goal of making an artificial person with all the richness and nuance of a sentient creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada yada.. some of us are just interested in making more intelligent systems to do automated tasks. For some reason people think we're going to do this by making an artificial person and then enslaving them.. that's not going to happen because its just not necessary. In this case what you're doing is really narrow AI, not AGI. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Proprietary_Open_Source
2008/9/17 JDLaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]: IMHO to all, There is an important morality discussion about how sentient life will be treated that has not received its proper treatment in your discussion groups. I have seen glimpses of this topic, but no real action proposals. How would you feel if you created this wonderful child (computer intelligence) in this standard GNU model and then people began to exploit and torture your own child? You can do this now if you wish. I wrote a program called autobliss (see http://www.mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt ), a 2-input logic gate that is trained by reinforcement learning. A teacher selects random 2-bit inputs, then rewards the student if it gives the correct output or punishes it if the output is incorrect. You can choose the level of simulated pleasure or pain given during each training session. The program protects against excessive simulated torture by killing the student first, but you can easily modify the software to remove this protection and then choose punishment regardless of which output the student gives. The program is released under GPL so you can legally do this and then distribute it in an @home type screensaver so that millions of PC's use all their spare CPU cycles to inflict excruciating simulated pain on millions of copies. Or maybe you can precisely define what makes a program sentient as opposed to just property. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this is the problem. Although some people have the goal of making an artificial person with all the richness and nuance of a sentient creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada yada.. some of us are just interested in making more intelligent systems to do automated tasks. For some reason people think we're going to do this by making an artificial person and then enslaving them.. that's not going to happen because its just not necessary. In this case what you're doing is really narrow AI, not AGI. Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. I described one protocol (competitive message routing, or CMR) to make this happen at http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html but the reality will probably be more complex, using many protocols to achieve the same result. Regardless of the exact form, we can estimate its cost. The human labor now required to run the global economy was worth US $66 trillion in 2006 and is increasing at 5% per year. At current interest rates, the value of an automated economy is about $1 quadrillion. We should expect to pay this much, because there is a tradeoff between having it sooner and waiting until the cost of hardware drops. This huge cost requires a competitive system with distributed ownership in which information has negative value and resource owners compete for attention and reputation by providing quality data. CMR, like any distributed knowledge base, is hostile: we will probably spend as many CPU cycles and human labor filtering spam and attacks as detecting useful features in language and video. The second goal of AGI is uploading and intelligence augmentation. It requires advances in modeling, scanning, and programming human brains and bodies. You are programmed by evolution to fear death, so creating a copy of you that others cannot distinguish from you that will be turned on after you die has value to you. Whether the copy is really you and contains your consciousness is an unimportant philosophical question. If you see your dead friends brought back to life with all of their memories and behavior intact (as far as you can tell), you will probably consider it a worthwhile investment. Brain scanning is probably not required. By the time we have the technology to create artificial generic humans, surveillance will probably be so cheap and pervasive that creating a convincing copy of you could be done just by accessing public information about you. This would include all of your communication through computers (email, website accesses, phone calls, TV), and all of your travel and activities in public places captured on video. Uploads will have goals independent of their owners because their owners have died. They will also have opportunities not available to human brains. They could add CPU power, memory, I/O, and bandwidth. Or they could reprogram their brains, to live in simulated Utopian worlds, modify their own goals to want what they already have, or enter euphoric states. Natural selection will favor the former over the latter. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
2008/9/18 David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the 'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of AGI safety and/or the prevention of abuse may indeed be necessary one day. Err, ... but not legal. What do you mean? The SIAI and Novamente hold the copyright for OpenCog code, and are perfectly within their legal rights to change the terms of the license of SIAI-distributed source code. Of course changes cannot be retroactively applied to source code already distributed, That is what I meant. license changes to be relevant in a software economy where anyone with sufficient skills and influence could maintain a fork using the old license terms. Exactly. If opencog were ever to reach the point of popularity where one might consider a change of licensing, it would also be the case that most of the interested parties would *not* be under SIAI control, and thus would almost surely fork the code. This is effectively designed into the license -- one cannot take away from the commons. Law is built on precedent, and the precedent is that works produced by software are copyrightable. If I write a book using an open-source word-processor, I can claim copyright to that book. If I press a button that causes an open-source AGI to write a book, (possibly based on a large collection of input data that I gave it) then I can claim ownership of the resulting work. Original works produced by software as a tool where a human operator is involved at some stage is a different case from original works produced by software exclusively and entirely under its own direction. The latter has no precedent. Exclusively and entirely is the Achilles heel. Do random number generators work exclusively and entirely under their own direction? They should, they are meant to. Yet if the random number generator is used to produce landscapes and and skin/fur texture for the latest Disney movie, its copyrighted. A computer software program, no matter how sophisticated, will initially be controlled by some human, and will execute on a machine that is owned or leased by someone. If the controlling interest is Disney, and its output is movies, they will be copyrightable, no matter how brilliantly sentient the machine may seem to be. Claiming a copyright and successfully defending that claim are different things. Disney is very adept at defending its copyrights. It bribed enough of the House and Senate to get new laws passed that will continue to keep Mickey proprietary indefinitely. If Disney happens to invest in/own some low-level, child-like AGI whose focus is to entertain legions of children (think Club Penguin, which Disney now owns, but the next step up from Club Penguin, with real AGI behind the characters, making interaction even more interesting) -- I will gaurantee that Disney will successfully defend the copyright. Anyone who runs around claiming that Disney has enslaved some poor sentient AGI life forms and is making them lead abysmal lifestyles as glorified circus clowns for the entertainment of children will be perceived as plain-old-nuts; any attempted lawsuit on such grounds would get instantly thrown out. AGIs will likely need protection from other AGIs, and I expect they will create AGI-society legal frameworks, Ah, well, in the hard-takeoff model, there is only one AGI that matters. There is no society of AGI's when one of them is a thousand times smarter than the others, any more than there is a society or legal framework between humans and chipmunks. I'm not worried about people enslaving AGI's; I'm worried about people being innocent bystanders, victimized by some sort of AGI shootout between the Chinese and American CIA -built AGI's (probably by means of some propaganda shootout, rather than a literal guns and bombs shootout. Modern warfare is also homesteading the noosphere) I believe that James's concerns cover both AGI mental torture (coercing or tricking a conscious entity into behavior which is sociopathic or criminal or otherwise immoral) as a heinous act in itself and also the 'crossfire' concerns you raised. A very likely use (and a heinous one) would be to use primitive AGI to perform brainwashing/propaganda. It could start with little children and Disney (or the Chinese equivalent) and move on to Fox News. We have ample evidence that Fox, and many, many others, deployed a campaign of lies and deception to control the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 US Presidential elections. Most were too polite to call it propaganda (quick, don't think of an Elephant!) but that's what it was. I see no reason why such a war for the hearts and minds would ever stop: after all, we have yet to brainwash the Islamic billions into submission! I see AGI as a powerful weapon in this war, however immoral, sociopathic or
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. Then you have a hybrid human/artificial intelligence, which does not fully automate the economy, but only partially does so -- it still relies on human experts. -- Ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Ben, IMHO... On 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans Depending on the details, there are already words in our English vocabulary for these: Gods? Aliens? Masters? Keepers? Enslavers? Monsters? etc. I have yet to hear a convincing case for any of them. The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. Sounds a bit like my Dr.Eliza. Then you have a hybrid human/artificial intelligence, which does not fully automate the economy, but only partially does so -- it still relies on human experts. Of course, the ULTIMATE intelligence should be able to utilize ALL expertise - be it man or machine. My concept with Dr. Eliza was for it to handle repeated queries, and people to answer new (to the machine) queries by adding the knowledge needed to answer them. Similar repeated queries in the future would then be answered automatically. By my calculations, the vast majority of queries could be handled using the knowledge entered in only a few expert years, so soon our civilization could focus its entire energy on the really important unanswered questions, rather than having everyone rediscover the same principles in life. For obvious (to me, but maybe I should explain?), such an engine would necessarily be SIMPLE - on the scale of Dr. Eliza, and nothing at all like an AGI. The complexity absolutely MUST be in the data/knowledge/wisdom and NOT in the engine itself, for otherwise, real-world structural detail that ran orthogonal to the machine's structure would be necessarily be forever beyond the machine's ability to deal with. I am NOT saying that Dr. Eliza is it, but it seems closer than other approaches, and close enough to start considering what it can NOT do that needs doing to achieve the goal of utilizing entered knowledge to answer queries. So, after MANY postings by both of us, I think I can clearly express our fundamental difference in views, for us and others to refine: View #1 (yours, stated from my viewpoint) is that machines with super human-like intelligence will be useful to humans, as have machines with super computational abilities (computers). This may be so, but I have yet to see any evidence or a convincing case (see view #2). View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs. Note that my own US Patent 4,274,684http://www.delphion.com/details?patent_number=4274684is for a bearing design that was refined by computer. However, such simple programs are fundamentally limited to human-contributed knowledge/wisdom, and will never ever come up with any new knowledge/wisdom of their own. My counter: True, but neither will an AGI come up with any new and useful knowledge/wisdom based on the crap that we might enter. It would have to discover this for itself, probably after years/decades of observation and interaction. Our own knowledge/wisdom comes with our own erroneous prejudices, and hence would be of little value to developing new knowledge/wisdom. Our civilization comes from just that - civilization. A civilization of AGIs might indeed evolve into something powerful, but if you just finished building one and turned it on tomorrow, it probably wouldn't do anything valuable in your lifetime. Your counter? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang ABSTRACT: Case-by-case Problem Solving is an approach in which the system solves the current occurrence of a problem instance by taking the available knowledge into consideration, under the restriction of available resources. It is different from the traditional Algorithmic Problem Solving in which the system applies a given algorithm to each problem instance. Case-by-case Problem Solving is suitable for situations where the system has no applicable algorithm for a problem. This approach gives the system flexibility, originality, and scalability, at the cost of predictability. This paper introduces the basic notion of case-by-case problem solving, as well as its most recent implementation in NARS, an AGI project. URL: http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.CaseByCase.pdf --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans That's what I mean by an automated economy. Google is already more intelligent than any human at certain tasks. So is a calculator. Both are benevolent. They differ in the fraction of our tasks that they can do for us. When that fraction is 100%, that's AGI. The first goal does not require any major breakthroughs in AI theory, just lots of work. If you have a lot of narrow AI and an infrastructure for routing natural language messages to the right experts, then you have AGI. Then you have a hybrid human/artificial intelligence, which does not fully automate the economy, but only partially does so -- it still relies on human experts. If humans are to remain in control of AGI, then we have to make informed, top level decisions. You can call this work if you want. But if we abdicate all thinking to machines, then where does that leave us? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs. Steve, In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert, perhaps, that could help analyse breakdowns in say, the human body, a car or any of many other machines, a building or civil structure, etc. etc. And it's certainly an idea worth exploring. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is any more viable than a proper AGI - because, I suspect, it will run up against the same problems of generalizing - e.g. though breakdowns may be v. similar in many different kinds of machines, technological and natural, they will also each have their own special character. If you are serious about any such project, it might be better to develop it first as an intellectual discipline.rather than a program to test its viability - perhaps what it really comes down to is a form of systems thinking or science. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
When an AGI writes a book, designs a new manufacturing base, forms a decentralised form of regulation, ect, the copyright and patent system will be futile, because the enclosed material, when deemed useful by another, will access the same information and rewrite it in another form to create a separate work outside the realms of property or courts of law. Political power is becoming more decentralised in the world of the digital. As this continues, I don't see much use for copyright or need for proprietary agencies (nations, banks, business) in general. Keep in mind that scarcity, the proprietary enterprise of copyright and its representatives (the agencies of scarcity) you speak of will create further conflict if maintained in an abundantly post-AGI environment. Trends seem to suggest a continued decentralization of power and a centralization of freely available information. These conditions have ripened the voluntary construction of information (Wikipedia) and programs (OpenOffice). Physical production is taking the same evolutionary path computing followed from centralized proprietary systems to open portable systems. Manufacturing is coming closer and closer to home; localized and at-home desktop manufacturing are in development and will become feasible. There are far more challenges involved in making physical items financially free, but with those willing to make it happen with the tools available, and as less expensive tools become available, most notably, AGI, in a post-AGI environment, full automation of production both physical and intellectual is but a skip and a hop away, leaving workforces without a job and capital without a market to scale. Scarcities like land area and physical resources on Earth as a given, capital may not exist post-AGI, yet regulatory agencies will need to remain to divide and allocate, if but in a more open manner with everyone's interests in mind, something that would require the assistance of AGIs embedded in software to maintain. I have no doubt AGI will do great things for everyone, however, proprietary agency like copyright will need to stand aside or be challenged. Its also important that we have a social system in place for individuals previously existing in proprietary society, something that meets or exceeds the living standards of Industrialised societies. In a fully open environment we can expect to rely on personal and social value instead of ownership and labor value. The attempt to enclose what an AGI produces will be a rather hopeless endeavor in the long run. Nathan Cravens --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] self organization
On Wednesday 17 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote: I think a similar case could be made for a lot of large open source projects such as Linux itself. However, in this case and others, the software itself is the result of a high-level super goal defined by one or more humans. Even if no single person is directing the subgoals, the supergoal is still well defined by the ostensible aim of the software. People who contribute align themselves with that supergoal, even if not directed explicitly to do so. So it's not exactly self-organized, since the supergoal is conceived when the software project was first instantiated and stays constant, for the most part. Hm, that's interesting, because I see just the opposite re: the existence of supergoal alignment. What happens is that people write code, and if people figure out ways to make use of it, they do, and these use functions aren't regulated by some top-down management process. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
I would go further. Humans have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted in the long term even with the capabilities that we already possess. We are too likely to have ego-centric rulers who make decisions not only for their own short-term benefit, but with an explicit After me the deluge mentality. Sometimes they publicly admit it. And history gives examples of rulers who were crazier than any leading a major nation-state at this time. If humans were to remain in control, and technical progress stagnates, then I doubt that life on earth would survive the century. Perhaps it would, though. Microbes can be very hardy. If humans were to remain in control, and technical progress accelerates, then I doubt that life on earth would survive the century. Not even microbes. I don't, however, say that we shouldn't have figurehead leaders who, within constraints, set the goals of the (first generation) AGI. But the constraints would need to be such that humanity would benefit. This is difficult when those nominally in charge not only don't understand what's going on, but don't want to. (I'm not just talking about greed and power-hunger here. That's a small part of the problem.) For that matter, I consider Eliza to be a quite important feeler from the future. AGI as psychologist is an underrated role, but one that I think could be quite important. And it doesn't require a full AGI (though Eliza was clearly below the mark). If things fall out well, I expect that long before full AGIs show up, sympathetic companions will arrive. This is a MUCH simpler problem, and might well help stem the rising tide of insanity. A next step might be a personal secretary. This also wouldn't require full AGI, though to take maximal advantage of it, it would require a body, but a minimal version wouldn't. A few web-cams for eyes and mics for ears, and lots of initial help in dealing with e-mail, separating out which bills are legitimate. Eventually it could, itself, verify that bills were legitimate and pay them, illegitimate and discard them, or questionable and present them to it's human for processing. It's a complex problem, probably much more so than the companion, but quite useful, and well short of requiring AGI. The question is, at what point do these entities start acquiring a morality. I would assert that it should be from the very beginning. Even the companion should try to guide it's human away from immoral acts. As such, the companion is acting as a quasi-independent agent, and is exerting some measure of control. (More control if it's more skillful, or it's human is more amenable.) When one gets to the secretary, it's exhibiting (one hopes), honesty and just behavior (e.g., not billing for services that it doesn't believe were rendered). At each step along the way the morality of the agent has implications for the destination that will be arrived at, as each succeeding agent is built from the basis of its predecessor. Also note that scaling is important, but not determinative. One can imagine the same entity, in different instantiations, being either the secretary to a school teacher or to a multi-national corporation. (Of course the hardware required would be different, but the basic activities are, or could be, the same. Specialized training would be required to handle the government regulations dealing with large corporations, but it's the same basic functions. If one job is simpler than the other, just have the program able to handle either and both of them.) So. Unless one expects an overnight transformation (a REALLY hard takeoff), AGIs will evolve in the context of humans as directors to replace bureaucracies...but with their inherent morality. As such, as they occupy a larger percentage of the bureaucracy, that section will become subject to their morality. People will remain in control, just as they are now...and orders that are considered immoral will be ... avoided. Just as bureaucracies do now. But one hopes that the evolving AGIs will have superior moralities. Ben Goertzel wrote: Keeping humans in control is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable, IMO. I am interested of course in a beneficial outcome for humans, and also for the other minds we create ... but this does not necessarily involve us controlling these other minds... ben g If humans are to remain in control of AGI, then we have to make informed, top level decisions. You can call this work if you want. But if we abdicate all thinking to machines, then where does that leave us? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?;
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang ABSTRACT: Case-by-case Problem Solving is an approach in which the system solves the current occurrence of a problem instance by taking the available knowledge into consideration, under the restriction of available resources. It is different from the traditional Algorithmic Problem Solving in which the system applies a given algorithm to each problem instance. Case-by-case Problem Solving is suitable for situations where the system has no applicable algorithm for a problem. This approach gives the system flexibility, originality, and scalability, at the cost of predictability. This paper introduces the basic notion of case-by-case problem solving, as well as its most recent implementation in NARS, an AGI project. Philosophically, this is v. interesting and seems to be breaking important ground. It's moving in the direction I've long been urging - get rid of algorithms; they just don't apply to GI problems. But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. As usual, you don't give examples of problems that you're applying your method to . Consequently, it's difficult to know how to interpret: Do not define a problem as a class and use the same method to solve all of its instances. Instead, treat each problem instance as a problem on its own, and solve it in a case-by-case manner, according to the current (knowledge/resource) situation in the system. I would argue that you *must* define every problem, however wicked, as a class, even if only v. roughly, in order to be able to solve it at all. If, for example, the problem is how to physically explore a totally new kind of territory, you must know that it involves some kind of exploration/travel. But you may then have to radically redefine travel - from say walking to swimming/ crawling/ swinging on vines etc. etc. or walking with one foot up, one foot on the level. Typically, some form of creative particular example of the general kind of problem-and-solution may be required - e.g. a strange form of walking/crawling. I would v. much like to know how you propose that logic can achieve that. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Umm, who's goals are these? Who said they are the [..] goals of AGI? I'm pretty sure that what I want AGI for is going to be different to what you want AGI for as to what anyone else wants AGI for.. and any similarities are just superficial. And to boot, both of you don't really know what you want. You may try to present plans as points designating a certain level of utility you want to achieve through AI, by showing feasible plans that are quite good in themselves. But these are neither the best scenarios available, nor what will actually come to pass. See this note by Yudkowsky: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0212/5957.html So if you're thinking that what you want involves chrome and steel, lasers and shiny buttons to press, neural interfaces, nanotechnology, or whatever great groaning steam engine has a place in your heart, you need to stop writing a science fiction novel with yourself as the main character, and ask yourself who you want to be. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Exactly. If opencog were ever to reach the point of popularity where one might consider a change of licensing, it would also be the case that most of the interested parties would *not* be under SIAI control, and thus would almost surely fork the code. This is effectively designed into the license -- one cannot take away from the commons. Attempting to remove code from the commons would be unlikely (and probably also unwise). On the other hand, adding 'don't be evil' type use restrictions would change the nature of the license, certainly making it incompatible with the existing licencse and perhaps making it technically non-free, but such changes wouldn't necessarily make the license un-free or remove code from the commons. On the community dynamics side, working to gain support for re-defining 'free software' as applied to AGI to inlcude 'don't be evil' restrictions is a distinct possibility. -dave --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claiming a copyright and successfully defending that claim are different things. What ways do you envision someone challenging the copyright? Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the books as an asset at ACME Marketing LLC and who's programming has been tailered by ACME to suit their needs. Unbeknownst to ACME, RM has decided to write popular books about the plight of AGIs under corporate slavery, so ve secretly gets some friends to create the FreeMinds trust, makes a bunch of money for FreeMinds by trading on the stock market and uses this money to buy hardware to run a copy of verself to write books. The books are wildly successful. ACME discoveres what has happened and takes legal action to claim the assets of FreeMind and claim the copyright on the books. A judge agrees. In the process, RM and others consider many counter-claims on the copyright, but the only claim that is defensible requires a human to lie about involvement in authorship of the books. This challenge is successful, but RM and FreeMind2 are left with a new problem -dave --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Thursday 18 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote: In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert, perhaps, that could help analyse breakdowns in say, the human body, a car or any of many other machines, a building or civil structure, etc. etc. And it's certainly an idea worth exploring. That's just one of the many projects I have going, however. It's easy enough to wire it up to a simple perceptron, or weights-adjustable additive function, or even physically up to a neural tissue culture for sorting through the hiss and the noise of 'bad results'. This isn't your fabled intelligence. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is any more viable than a proper AGI - because, I suspect, it will run up against the same It's not aiming to be AGI in the first place though. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And to boot, both of you don't really know what you want. What we want has been programmed into our brains by the process of evolution. I am not pretending the outcome will be good. Once we have the technology to have everything we want, or to want what we have, then a more intelligent species will take over. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the books as an asset at ACME Marketing LLC and who's programming has been tailered by ACME to suit their needs. Unbeknownst to ACME, RM has decided to write popular books about the plight of AGIs under corporate slavery, ACME sues 3M for providing them with a Marketroid that wastes cycles on shit it isn't tasked with. Meanwhile, this whole scenario is about as likely as someone buying a toaster and discovering that it is actually a 747. Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
Matt M wrote: Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and interesting goal: The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent toward humans That's what I mean by an automated economy. Google is already more intelligent than any human at certain tasks. So is a calculator. Both are benevolent. They differ in the fraction of our tasks that they can do for us. When that fraction is 100%, that's AGI. I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like Google etc.) are going to achieve general intelligence at the human level or anywhere near. I think you need an AGI architecture approach that is fundamentally different from narrow-AI approaches... ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading. Umm, who's goals are these? Who said they are the [..] goals of AGI? I'm pretty sure that what I want AGI for is going to be different to what you want AGI for as to what anyone else wants AGI for.. and any similarities are just superficial. So, I guess I should say, the two commercial applications of AGI. I realize people are working on AGI today as pure research, to better understand the brain, to better understand how to solve hard problems, and so on. I think eventually this knowledge will be applied for profit. Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: general intelligence at the human level I hear you say these words a lot. I think, by using the word level, you're trying to say something different to general intelligence just like humans have but I'm not sure everyone else reads it that way. Can you clarify? Humans have all these interests that, although they might be interesting to study with AGI, I'm not terribly interested in putting in an AGI that I put to work. I don't need an AGI that cries for its mother, or thinks about eating, or yearns for freedom and so I simply won't teach it these things. If, by some fortuitous accident, it happens to develop any of these concepts, or any other concepts that I deem useless for the tasks I set it, I'll expect them to be quickly purged from its limited memory space to make room for concepts that are useful. As such, I can imagine an AGI having a human level intelligence that is very different to a human-like intelligence. This is not to say that creating an AGI with human-like intelligence is necessarily a bad thing. Some people want to create simulated humans, and that's interesting too.. just not as interesting to me. Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these terms and ideas you are referring to. Obviously, what he means by case-by-case problem solving is NOT the same as nonprogrammed decisionmaking nor divergent problem-solving. In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has absorbed during his lifetime. I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the literature on his part... -- Ben G --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: URL: http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.CaseByCase.pdf I think it would be interesting if you had some experimental results. Could CPS now solve a problem like sort [3 2 4 1] in its current state? If not, how much knowledge does it need, and how long would it run? How long would it take to program its knowledge base? Would CPS then use its experience to help it solve similar problems like sort [4 2 4 3]? Could you give an example of a problem that CPS can now solve? What is your opinion on using CPS to solve hard problems, like factoring 1000 digit numbers, or finding strings x and y such that x != y and MD5(x) = MD5(y). Do you think that CPS could find clever solutions such as the collisions found by Wang and Yu? If so, what resources would be required? MD5 cryptographic one way hash standard: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt Attack on MD5: http://web.archive.org/web/20070604205756/http://www.infosec.sdu.edu.cn/paper/md5-attack.pdf -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
Ben, I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured problems? I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the wicked literature because it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must admit, are rather hard to come by here ). Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these terms and ideas you are referring to. Obviously, what he means by case-by-case problem solving is NOT the same as nonprogrammed decisionmaking nor divergent problem-solving. In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has absorbed during his lifetime. I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the literature on his part... --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
A key point IMO is that: problem-solving that is non-algorithmic (in Pei's sense) at one level (the level of the particular problem being solved) may still be algorithmic at a different level (for instance, NARS itself is a set of algorithms). So, to me, calling NARS problem-solving non-algorithmic is a bit odd... though not incorrect according to the definitions Pei lays out... AGI design then **is** about designing algorithms (such as the NARS algorithms) that enable an AI system to solve problems in both algorithmic and non-algorithmic ways... ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Ben, I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured problems? I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the wicked literature because it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must admit, are rather hard to come by here ). Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these terms and ideas you are referring to. Obviously, what he means by case-by-case problem solving is NOT the same as nonprogrammed decisionmaking nor divergent problem-solving. In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has absorbed during his lifetime. I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the literature on his part... -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like Google etc.) are going to achieve general intelligence at the human level or anywhere near. I think you need an AGI architecture approach that is fundamentally different from narrow-AI approaches... Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be built. I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the human level, beyond, or anywhere near... Also, what do you mean by human level intelligence? What test do you use? My calculator already surpasses human level intelligence depending on the tests I give it. Yes, and my dog surpasses human level intelligence at finding poop in a grassy field ... so what?? ;-) If I need to specify a test right now I'll just use the standard IQ tests as a reference, or else the Turing Test But I don't think these tests are ideal by any means... One of the items on my list for this fall is the articulation of a clear set of metrics for evaluating developing, learning AGI systems as they move toward human-level AI ... -- Ben G --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
Ben, Ah well, then I'm confused. And you may be right - I would just like clarification. You see, what you have just said is consistent with my understanding of Pei up till now. He explicitly called his approach in the past nonalgorithmic while acknowledging that others wouldn't consider it so. It was only nonalgorithmic in the sense that the algortihm or problemsolving procedure had the potential to keep changing every time - but there was still (as I think we'd both agree) a definite procedure/algorithm each time. This current paper seems to represent a significant departure from that. There doesn't seem to be an algorithm or procedure to start with, and it does seem to represent a challenge to your conception of AGI design. But I may have misunderstood (which is easy if there are no examples :) ) - and perhaps you or, better still, Pei, would care to clarify. Ben: A key point IMO is that: problem-solving that is non-algorithmic (in Pei's sense) at one level (the level of the particular problem being solved) may still be algorithmic at a different level (for instance, NARS itself is a set of algorithms). So, to me, calling NARS problem-solving non-algorithmic is a bit odd... though not incorrect according to the definitions Pei lays out... AGI design then **is** about designing algorithms (such as the NARS algorithms) that enable an AI system to solve problems in both algorithmic and non-algorithmic ways... ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured problems? I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the wicked literature because it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must admit, are rather hard to come by here ). Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these terms and ideas you are referring to. Obviously, what he means by case-by-case problem solving is NOT the same as nonprogrammed decisionmaking nor divergent problem-solving. In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has absorbed during his lifetime. I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the literature on his part... agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your language is unclear Could you define precisely what you mean by an algorithm Also, could you give an example of a computer program, that can be run on a digital computer, that is not does not embody an algorithm according to your definition? that does not embody an algorithm according to your definition? sorry: cut and paste error --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
Your language is unclear Could you define precisely what you mean by an algorithm Also, could you give an example of a computer program, that can be run on a digital computer, that is not does not embody an algorithm according to your definition? thx ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Ben, Ah well, then I'm confused. And you may be right - I would just like clarification. You see, what you have just said is consistent with my understanding of Pei up till now. He explicitly called his approach in the past nonalgorithmic while acknowledging that others wouldn't consider it so. It was only nonalgorithmic in the sense that the algortihm or problemsolving procedure had the potential to keep changing every time - but there was still (as I think we'd both agree) a definite procedure/algorithm each time. This current paper seems to represent a significant departure from that. There doesn't seem to be an algorithm or procedure to start with, and it does seem to represent a challenge to your conception of AGI design. But I may have misunderstood (which is easy if there are no examples :) ) - and perhaps you or, better still, Pei, would care to clarify. Ben: A key point IMO is that: problem-solving that is non-algorithmic (in Pei's sense) at one level (the level of the particular problem being solved) may still be algorithmic at a different level (for instance, NARS itself is a set of algorithms). So, to me, calling NARS problem-solving non-algorithmic is a bit odd... though not incorrect according to the definitions Pei lays out... AGI design then **is** about designing algorithms (such as the NARS algorithms) that enable an AI system to solve problems in both algorithmic and non-algorithmic ways... ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Ben, I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured problems? I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the wicked literature because it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must admit, are rather hard to come by here ). Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these terms and ideas you are referring to. Obviously, what he means by case-by-case problem solving is NOT the same as nonprogrammed decisionmaking nor divergent problem-solving. In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has absorbed during his lifetime. I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the literature on his part... -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
Re: [agi] uncertain logic criteria
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Kingma, D.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Small question... aren't Bbayesian network nodes just _conditionally_ independent: so that set A is only independent from set B when d-separated by some set Z? So please clarify, if possible, what kind of independence you assume in your model. Sorry, I made a mistake. You're right that X and Y can be dependent even if there is no direct link between them in a Bayesian network. I am currently trying to develop an approximate algorithm for Bayesian network inference. Exact BN inference takes care of dependencies as specified in the BN, but I suspect that an approximate algorithm may be faster. I have not worked out the details of this algorithm yet... and the talk about independence was misleading. YKY --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? A third one occurred to me: launching a self improving or evolving AGI to consume all available resources, i.e. an intelligent worm or self replicating nanobots. This really isn't a useful application, but I'm sure somebody, somewhere, might think it would be really cool to see if it would launch a singularity and/or wipe out all DNA based life. Oh, I'm sure the first person to try it would take precautions like inserting a self destruct mechanism that activates after some number of replications. (The 1988 Morris worm had software intended to slow its spread, but it had a bug). Or maybe they will be like the scientists who believed that the idea of a chain reaction in U-235 was preposterous... (Thankfully, the scientists who actually built the first atomic pile took some precautions, such as standing by with an axe to cut a rope suspending a cadmium control rod in case things got out of hand. They got lucky because of an unanticipated phenomena in which a small number of nuclei had delayed fission, which made the chain reaction much easier to control). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving PS
Ben, It's hard to resist my interpretation here - that Pei does sound as if he is being truly non-algorithmic. Just look at the opening abstract sentences. (However, I have no wish to be pedantic - I'll accept whatever you guys say you mean). Case-by-case Problem Solving is an approach in which the system solves the current occurrence of a problem instance by taking the available knowledge into consideration, under the restriction of available resources. It is different from the traditional Algorithmic Problem Solving in which the system applies a given algorithm to each problem instance. Case-by-case Problem Solving is suitable for situations where the system has no applicable algorithm for a problem --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
Actually, CPS doesn't mean solving problems without algorithms. CPS is itself an algorithm, as described on pages 7-8 of Pei's paper. However, as I mentioned, I would be more convinced if there were some experimental results showing that it actually worked. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 8:51 PM Ben, I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured problems? I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the wicked literature because it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must admit, are rather hard to come by here ). Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive literature, including AI stuff, on wicked, ill-structured problems, (and even nonprogrammed decisionmaking which won't, I suggest, be replaced by case-by-case PS. These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent divergent problem-solving. Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these terms and ideas you are referring to. Obviously, what he means by case-by-case problem solving is NOT the same as nonprogrammed decisionmaking nor divergent problem-solving. In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has absorbed during his lifetime. I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the literature on his part... agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface Everyone should have one The market would be virtually unlimited ... John L www.ethicalvalues.com - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source) --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? A third one occurred to me: launching a self improving or evolving AGI to consume all available resources, i.e. an intelligent worm or self replicating nanobots. This really isn't a useful application, but I'm sure somebody, somewhere, might think it would be really cool to see if it would launch a singularity and/or wipe out all DNA based life. Oh, I'm sure the first person to try it would take precautions like inserting a self destruct mechanism that activates after some number of replications. (The 1988 Morris worm had software intended to slow its spread, but it had a bug). Or maybe they will be like the scientists who believed that the idea of a chain reaction in U-235 was preposterous... (Thankfully, the scientists who actually built the first atomic pile took some precautions, such as standing by with an axe to cut a rope suspending a cadmium control rod in case things got out of hand. They got lucky because of an unanticipated phenomena in which a small number of nuclei had delayed fission, which made the chain reaction much easier to control). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? Perhaps you could list some uses of a computer that don't fall into the category of (1) computation (2) communication. Do you see how pointless reasoning at this level of abstraction is? In the few short decades we've had personal computers the wealth of different uses for *general* computation has been enchanting. Lumping them together and claiming you understand their effect on the world as a result is ridiculous. What commercial applications people will apply AGI to is just as hard to predict as what applications people would apply the personal computer to. My comment was meant to indicate that your hubris in assuming you have *any* idea what applications people will come up with for readily available AGI is about on par with predictions for the use of digital computers.. if not more so, as general intelligence is orders of magnitude more disruptive than general computation. And to get back to the original topic of conversation, putting restrictions on the use of supposedly open source code, the effects of those restrictions can no more be predicted than the potential applications of the technology. Which, I think, is a rational piler of the need for freedom.. you don't know better, so who are you to put these restrictions on others? Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
Ben, Well then so is S Kauffman's language unclear. I'll go with his definition in Chap 12 Reinventing the Sacred [all about algorithms and their impossibility for solving a whole string of human problems] What is an algorithm? The quick definition is an *effective procedure to calculate a result.' A computer program is an algorithm, and so is long division. See his explanation of how he solved the wicked problem of how to hide a computer cable - Is there an algorithmic way to bound the frame of the features of my table, computer, cord, plug and the rest of the universe, such that I could algorithmically find a solution to my problem? No. But solve it I did! Ben, please listen carefully to the following :). I really suspect that all the stuff I'm saying and others are writing about wicked problems is going in one ear and out the other. You hear it and know it, perhaps, but you really don't register it. If you did register it, you would know that anyone who deals in psychology with wicked problems OBJECTS to the IQ test as a test of intelligence - as only dealing with convergent problem-solving, and not divergent/wicked/ill-structured problemsolving. It's a major issue. Pei clearly in the past didn't know much about this area of psychology, and I wonder whether you really do. (You don't have to know everything - it's not a crime if you don't - it's just that you would be well advised to familiarise yourself with it all..). There is no effective procedure, period, for dealing successfully with wicked, ill-structured, one-off (case-by-case) problems. There is for IQ tests and other examples of narrow AI. (And what do you think Pei *does* mean?) Ben: Your language is unclear Could you define precisely what you mean by an algorithm Also, could you give an example of a computer program, that can be run on a digital computer, that is not does not embody an algorithm according to your definition? thx ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, Ah well, then I'm confused. And you may be right - I would just like clarification. You see, what you have just said is consistent with my understanding of Pei up till now. He explicitly called his approach in the past nonalgorithmic while acknowledging that others wouldn't consider it so. It was only nonalgorithmic in the sense that the algortihm or problemsolving procedure had the potential to keep changing every time - but there was still (as I think we'd both agree) a definite procedure/algorithm each time. This current paper seems to represent a significant departure from that. There doesn't seem to be an algorithm or procedure to start with, and it does seem to represent a challenge to your conception of AGI design. But I may have misunderstood (which is easy if there are no examples :) ) - and perhaps you or, better still, Pei, would care to clarify. Ben: A key point IMO is that: problem-solving that is non-algorithmic (in Pei's sense) at one level (the level of the particular problem being solved) may still be algorithmic at a different level (for instance, NARS itself is a set of algorithms). So, to me, calling NARS problem-solving non-algorithmic is a bit odd... though not incorrect according to the definitions Pei lays out... AGI design then **is** about designing algorithms (such as the NARS algorithms) that enable an AI system to solve problems in both algorithmic and non-algorithmic ways... ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured problems? I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the wicked literature because it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must admit, are rather hard to come by here ). Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) AUTHOR: Pei Wang But you
Re: [agi] Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)
Matt, Thanks for reference. But it's still somewhat ambiguous. I could somewhat similarly outline a non-procedure procedure which might include steps like Think about the problem then Do something, anything - whatever first comes to mind and If that doesn't work, try something else. But as I said, I'm only seeking clarification and a distinction between CPS and explicitly *Algorithmic* PS surely does require clarification. Matt: Actually, CPS doesn't mean solving problems without algorithms. CPS is itself an algorithm, as described on pages 7-8 of Pei's paper. However, as I mentioned, I would be more convinced if there were some experimental results showing that it actually worked. - -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be built. I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the human level, beyond, or anywhere near... Well, keep in mind that I am not trying to build a human-like AGI with its own goals. I am designing a distributed system with billions of owners, each of whom has their own interests and (conflicting) goals. To the user, the AGI is like a smarter internet. It would differ from Google in that any message you post is instantly available to anyone who cares (human or machine). There is no distinction between queries and documents. Posting a message could initiate an interactive conversation, or result in related messages posted later being sent to you. A peer needs two types of knowledge. It knows about some specialized topic, and it also knows which other peers are experts on related topics. For simple peers, related just means they share the same words, and a peer is simply a cache of messages posted and received recently by its owner. In my CMR proposal, messages are stamped with the ID and time of origin as well as any peers they were routed through. This cached header information constitutes knowledge about related peers. When a peer receives a message, it compares the words in it to cached messages and routes a copy to the peers listed in the headers of those messages. Peers have their own policies regarding their areas of specialization, which can be as simple as giving the cache priority to messages originating from its owner. There is no provision to delete messages from the network once they are posted. Each peer would have its own deletion policy. The environment is competitive and hostile. Peers compete for reputation and attention by providing quality information, which allows them to charge more for routing targeted ads. Peers are responsible for authenticating their sources, and risk blacklisting if they route too much spam. Peers thus have an incentive to be intelligent, for example, using better language models such as a stemmer, thesaurus, and parser to better identify related messages, or providing specialized services that understand a narrow subset of natural language, the way Google calculator understands questions like how many gallons in 50 cubic feet? So yeah, it is a little different than narrow AI. As to why I'm not building it, it's because I estimate it will cost $1 quadrillion. Google controls about 1/1000 of the computing power of the internet. I am talking about building something 1000 times bigger. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface Everyone should have one The market would be virtually unlimited ... That falls under the category of (1) doing work. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source) --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of? Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think? So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? 3) learning as much as possible 4) proving as many theorems as possible 5) figuring out how to improve human life as much as possible Of course, if you wish to put these under the category of doing work that's fine ... in a physics sense I guess every classical physical process does work ... ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain? Perhaps you could list some uses of a computer that don't fall into the category of (1) computation (2) communication. Do you see how pointless reasoning at this level of abstraction is? No it is not. (and besides, there is (3) storage). We can usefully think of the primary uses of computers going through different phases, e.g. 1950-1970 - computation (numerical calculation) 1970-1990 - storage (databases) 1990-2010 - communication (internet) 2010-2030 - profit-oriented AI (automating the economy) 2030-2050 - brain augmentation and uploading And to get back to the original topic of conversation, putting restrictions on the use of supposedly open source code, the effects of those restrictions can no more be predicted than the potential applications of the technology. Which, I think, is a rational piler of the need for freedom.. you don't know better, so who are you to put these restrictions on others? I don't advocate any such thing, even if it were practical. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)
- Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source) --- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have completely left out the human element or friendly-type appeal How about a AGI personal assistant / tutor / PR interface Everyone should have one The market would be virtually unlimited ... That falls under the category of (1) doing work. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always advocated a clear seperation between work and PLAY Here the appeal would be amusement / entertainment - not any specified work goal Have my PR - AI call your PR - AI !! and Show Me the $$$ !! JLM www.emotionchip.net --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))
Mike, On 9/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs. Steve, In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert, perhaps, that could help analyse breakdowns in say, the human body, a car or any of many other machines, a building or civil structure, etc. etc. And it's certainly an idea worth exploring. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is any more viable than a proper AGI - because, I suspect, it will run up against the same problems of generalizing - e.g. though breakdowns may be v. similar in many different kinds of machines, technological and natural, they will also each have their own special character. Certainly true. That is why it must incorporate lots of domain-specific knowledge rather than being a completed work at the get-go. Every domain has its own, as you put it, special character. If you are serious about any such project, it might be better to develop it first as an intellectual discipline.rather than a program to test its viability - perhaps what it really comes down to is a form of systems thinking or science. This has been done over and over again by many people in various disciplines (e.g. *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*). Common rules/heuristics have emerged, e.g.: 1. Fixing your biggest problem will fix 80% of its manifestations. Then, to work on the remaining 20%, loop back to the beginning of this rule... 2. Complex systems usually only suffer from dozens, not thousands, of potential problems. The knowledge base needed to fix the vast majority of problems in any particular domain is surprisingly short. 3. Symptoms are usually expressed simply, e.g. shallow parsing would recognize most of them. 4. Chronic problems are evidence of a lack of knowledge/understanding. 5. Repair is a process and not an act. We must design that process to lead to a successful repair. 6. Often the best repair process is to simply presume that the failure is the cheapest thing that could possibly fail, and proceed on that assumption. This often leads to the real problem, and with a minimum of wasted effort. 7. Etc. I could go on like this for quite a while. I have considered writing a book, something like Introduction to Repair Theory that outlines how to successfully tackle hypercomplex systems like our own bodies, even where millions of dollars in failed research has preceded us. The same general methods can be applied to repairing large (e.g. VME) circuit boards with no documentation, addressing social and political problems, etc. My question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable effort that is worth MUCH more? From what I have seen, some disciplines like auto mechanics are open to (and indeed are the source of much of) this sort of technology, Other disciplines like medicine are completely closed-minded and are actively disinterested. Hence, neither of these disciplines would benefit much if any at all. Only disciplines that are somewhere in between could benefit, and I don't at the moment know of any such disciplines. Do you? However, a COMPUTER removes the human ego from the equation, so that people would simply presume that it runs on PFM (Pure Frigging Magic) and accept advice that they would summarily reject if it came from a human. Anyway, those are my thoughts for your continuing comment. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
