AW: [agi] New Scientist: Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws
Mike Tintner wrote, You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this certainly not universal, but v. common here). If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: find a new way for chess pieces to move - and therefore develop a new form of chess (without any preparation other than some knowledge about different rules and how different pieces in different games move). Or something like get your opponent to take back his move before he removes his hand from the piece - where some use of psychology, say, might be appropriate rather than anything to do directly with chess itself. In your example you leave the domain of chess rules. There *are* already emergent problems just within the domain of chess. For example I could see, that my chess program tends to move the queen too early. Or it tends to attack the other side too late and so on. The programmer will then have the difficult task to change heuristics and parameters of the program to get the right emergent behavior. But this is possible. I think you suppose that creativity is something very strange and mythical and cannot be done by machines. I don't think so. Creativity is mainly the ability to use and combine *all* the pieces of knowledge you have. The creativity of humans seems to be so mythical just because the knowledge data base is so huge. Remember how many bits your brain receives every second for many years! A chess program has only knowledge of chess. And that's the main reason it just can do chess. But within chess, it can be creative. You see an inherent algorithmic problem to obtain creativity but it is in fact just mainly a problem of knowledge. So has the chess program the same creativity as a human if you are fair and restrict just to the domain and knowledge of chess? The answer is yes! Very good experts of chess often say that a certain move of a chess program is creative, spirited, clever and so on. - Matthias --- 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
AW: AW: [agi] I Can't Be In Two Places At Once.
The quantum level biases would be more general and more correct as it is the case with quantum physics and classical physics. The reasons why humans do not have modern physics biases for space and time: There is no relevant advantage to survive when you have such biases and probably the costs of necessary resources to obtain any advantage are far too high for a biological system. But with future AGI (not the first level), these objections won't hold. We don't need AGI do help us with middle level physics. We will need AGI to make progress in worlds, were our innate intuitions do not hold, namely nanotechnology, inner cellular biology. So there would be an advantage for quantum biases and because of this advantage the quantum biases would probably more often used than non-quantum biases. And what about the costs of resources? We could imagine an AGI brain which has the size of a continent. Of course not for the first level AGI. But I am sure, that future AGIs will have quantum biases. But as Ben said: First we should build AGI with biases we have and understand. And the main 3 problems of AGI should be solved first: How to obtain knowledge, how to represent knowledge and how to use knowledge to solve different problems in different domains. Charles Hixson wrote: I feel that an AI with quantum level biases would be less general. It would be drastically handicapped when dealing with the middle level, which is where most of living is centered. Certainly an AGI should have modules which can more or less directly handle quantum events, but I would predict that those would not be as heavily used as the ones that deal with the mid level. We (usually) use temperature rather then molecule speeds for very good reasons. --- 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] open or closed source for AGI project?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A good idea and a euro will get you a cup of coffee. Whoever said you need to protect ideas is just shilly-shallying you. Ideas have no market value; anyone capable of taking them up, already has more ideas of his own than time to implement them. Don't take my word for it, look around you; do you see people on this list going, I'm ready to start work, someone give me an idea please? No, you see people going, here are my ideas, and other people going, great thanks, but I've already got my own. What people will pay for is to have their problems solved. If you want to get paid for AI, I think the best hope is to make as an open-source project, and offer support, consultancy etc. It's a model that has worked for other types of open source software. But how do you explain the fact that many of today's top financially successful companies rely on closed-source software? A recent example is Google's search engine, which remains closed source. If they had open-sourced their search engine, my guess is that there would be many more copy-cats now all over the world. True, ideas are in abundance, but in the same design space people tend to converge on the same ideas. So competition depends on those few ideas. Also, there are innovative ideas that solve some bottleneck problems, which are very valuable. 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: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?
Russell : Whoever said you need to protect ideas is just shilly-shallying you. Ideas have no market value; anyone capable of taking them up, already has more ideas of his own than time to implement them. In AGI, that certainly seems to be true - ideas are crucial, but require such a massive amount of implementation. That's why I find Peter Voss and others - incl Ben at times - refusing to discuss their ideas, silly. Even if say you have a novel idea for applying AGI or a sub-AGI to some highly commercial field, it would still all depend on implementation. The chance of someone stealing your idea is v. remote. And discussing your ideas openly will only improve them. In many other creative fields, there can be reason to be secretive. If you had an idea for some new, more efficient chemical, or way of treating a chemical, for an electric battery, say, that could be v. valuable and highly stealable. Hence all those formula movies. --- 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] universal logical form for natural language
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cyc's DB is not publicly modifiable, but it's **huge** ... big enough that its bulk would take others a really long time to replicate A competent AGI should be able to absorb Cyc's knowledge, and I will probably do so (unless it turns out to be very difficult). If the Cyc KB is in FOL purely, it should be relatively easy. Why don't you find out if you can do anything interesting w/ Cyc's existing **publicly available** DB, before setting about making your own. You may find out, just like Cyc has, that possessing such a DB doesn't really get you anywhere in terms of creating AGI ... or even in terms of creating surpassingly useful narrow-AI systems... I'm building a prototype AGI now, and will give it a very small test KB so it can parse some simple sentences and do some inferences. The next step would be to absorb Cyc's KB and then let online users expand it. Also, I will provide some learning algorithms to be used in conjunction with user inputs -- for example, users can give examples of reasoning in NL, and the AGI will learn the logical rules from those examples. This seems to me to be the right way towards AGI... 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: [agi] universal logical form for natural language
Cyc's DB is not publicly modifiable, but it's **huge** ... big enough that its bulk would take others a really long time to replicate Why don't you find out if you can do anything interesting w/ Cyc's existing **publicly available** DB, before setting about making your own. You may find out, just like Cyc has, that possessing such a DB doesn't really get you anywhere in terms of creating AGI ... or even in terms of creating surpassingly useful narrow-AI systems... ben On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:00 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still don't understand why you think a simple interface for entering facts is so important... Cyc has a great UI for entering facts, and used it to enter millions of them already ... how far did it get them toward AGI??? Does Cyc have a publicly modifiable AND centrally maintained KB? That's what I'm trying to make... 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/?; Powered by Listbox: 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: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how do you explain the fact that many of today's top financially successful companies rely on closed-source software? A recent example is Google's search engine, which remains closed source. Nobody paid Google for their idea. Nobody paid them for their prototype code. What they got paid for was *solving people's problems* -- delivering a better search service. I'm not saying every project has to be open source. I'm saying revenue will accrue to an AI if and only if, when and because it solves people's problems. If you think you can get to that stage by your own labor alone, go for it. If you think you can persuade a venture capitalist to fund you to hire a team to do it, go for it. If you think you're charismatic enough to get people to fund you as charity, go for it. If you think you can by some other method make it work as a closed source project, go for it. If not, make it open source. But whichever route you pick, follow it with conviction. If you flag your project open source and then start talking about protecting your ideas and trying to measure the exact value of everybody's contributions so everybody gets just what's coming to them and no more, people will avoid it like a week-dead rat. You might have the best intentions in the world, but those intentions need to come across clearly and unambiguously in how you present your strategy. --- 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] open or closed source for AGI project?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But whichever route you pick, follow it with conviction. If you flag your project open source and then start talking about protecting your ideas and trying to measure the exact value of everybody's contributions so everybody gets just what's coming to them and no more, people will avoid it like a week-dead rat. You might have the best intentions in the world, but those intentions need to come across clearly and unambiguously in how you present your strategy. I was trying to find a way so we can collaborate on one project, but people don't seem to like the virtual credit idea. Even if I go opensource, the number of significant contributors may still be 0 (beside myself) 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: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?
A good idea and a euro will get you a cup of coffee. Whoever said you need to protect ideas is just shilly-shallying you. Ideas have no market value; anyone capable of taking them up, already has more ideas of his own than time to implement them. Don't take my word for it, look around you; do you see people on this list going, I'm ready to start work, someone give me an idea please? No, you see people going, here are my ideas, and other people going, great thanks, but I've already got my own. What people will pay for is to have their problems solved. If you want to get paid for AI, I think the best hope is to make as an open-source project, and offer support, consultancy etc. It's a model that has worked for other types of open source software. --- 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] open or closed source for AGI project?
Mike, The chance of someone stealing your idea is v. remote. There are many companies that made fortune with stolen ideas (e.g. Microsoft). But of course they are primarily after proven ideas. YKY, If practically doable, I would recommend closed source, utilizing ( possibly developing) as many open source components as possible. Also consider safety issues - functional AGI in wrong hands. The level of my safety concern would be (in part) influenced by how the AGI learns - e.g. whether the user's ability to teach the system is the tricky part which will ultimately make the system dumb/smart OR if the prototype learns more-less on its own. Jiri --- 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
OFFLIST [agi] Readings on evaluation of AGI systems
Hi Ben, A good bunch of papers. (1) Hales, C. 'An empirical framework for objective testing for P-consciousness in an artificial agent', The Open Artificial Intelligence Journal vol.? , 2008. Apparently it has been accepted but I'll believe it when I see it. It's highly relevant to the forum you mentioned. I was particularly interested in the Wray and Lebiere work... my paper (1) would hold that the problem in their statement Taskability is difficult to measure because there is no absolute notion of taskability -- a particular quantitative measure for one domain might represent the best one could achieve, while in another, it might be a baseline is solved. An incidental byproduct of the execution of the test is that all the other metrics in their paper are delivered to some extent. Computationalist AI subjects will fail the (1) test. Humans won't. A real AGI will pass. Testing has been a big issue for me and has taken quite a while to sort out. Peter Voss's AI will fail it. As will everything based on NUMENTA products.but they can try!.the test can speak for itself. Objective measurement of outward agent behaviour is decisive. All contenders have the same demands made of them...the only requirement is that verifiably autonomous, embodied agents only need apply. I don't know if this is of interest to anyone, but I thought I'd mention it. regards, Colin Ben Goertzel wrote: Hi all, In preparation for an upcoming (invitation-only, not-organized-by-me) workshop on Evaluation and Metrics for Human-Level AI systems, I concatenated a number of papers on the evaluation of AGI systems into a single PDF file (in which the readings are listed alphabetically in order of file name). In case anyone else finds this interesting, you can download the single PDF file from http://goertzel.org/AGI_Evaluation.pdf It's 196 pages of text I don't condone all the ideas in all the papers, nor necessarily consider all the papers incredibly fascinating ... but it's a decent sampling of historical thinking in the area by a certain subclass of AGI-ish academics... ben *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [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
