RE: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
Well, these artificial identities need to complete a loop. Say the artificial identity acquires an email address, phone#, a physical address, a bank account, logs onto Amazon and purchases stuff automatically it needs to be able to put money into its bank account. So let's say it has a low profit scheme to scalp day trading profits with its stock trading account. That's the loop, it has to be able to make money to make purchases. And then automatically file its taxes with the IRS. Then it's really starting to look like a full legally functioning identity. It could persist in this fashion for years. I would bet that these identities already exist. What happens when there are many, many of them? Would we even know? John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 8:17 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity Ian, I recall several years ago that a group in Britain was operating just such a chatterbox as you explained, but did so on numerous sex-related sites, all running simultaneously. The chatterbox emulated young girls looking for sex. The program just sat there doing its thing on numerous sites, and whenever a meeting was set up, it would issue a message to its human owners to alert the police to go and arrest the pedophiles at the arranged time and place. No human interaction was needed between arrests. I can imagine an adaptation, wherein a program claims to be manufacturing explosives, and is looking for other people to deliver those explosives. With such a story line, there should be no problem arranging deliveries, at which time you would arrest the would-be bombers. I wish I could tell you more about the British project, but they were VERY secretive. I suspect that some serious Googling would yield much more. Hopefully you will find this helpful. Steve = On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to see what other people's views were.My own view of the risks is as follows. If the Turing Machine is built to be as isomorphic with humans as possible, it would be incredibly dangerous. Indeed I feel that the biological model is far more dangerous than the mathematical. If on the other hand the TM was not isomorphic and made no attempt to be, the dangers would be a lot less. Most Turing/Löbner entries are chatterboxes that work on databases. The database being filled as you chat. Clearly the system cannot go outside its database and is safe. There is in fact some use for such a chatterbox. Clearly a Turing machine would be able to infiltrate militant groups however it was constructed. As for it pretending to be stupid, it would have to know in what direction it had to be stupid. Hence it would have to be a good psychologist. Suppose it logged onto a jihardist website, as well as being able to pass itself off as a true adherent, it could also look at the other members and assess their level of commitment and knowledge. I think that the true Turing/Löbner test is not working in a laboratory environment but they should log onto jihardist sites and see how well they can pass themselves off. If it could do that it really would have arrived. Eventually it could pass itself off as a peniti to use the Mafia term and produce arguments from the Qur'an against the militant position. There would be quite a lot of contracts to be had if there were a realistic prospect of doing this. - Ian Parker On 7 August 2010 06:50, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with it. Humans without augmentation are only so intelligent. A Turing machine would be potentially dangerous, a really well built one. At some point we'd need to see some DNA as ID of another extended TT. Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would give us political insights. You can have a relatively stupid TM or a sophisticated one just like humans. It might be easier to pass the TT by not exposing too much intelligence. John These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. - Ian Parker --- 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/? https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com agi |
Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps
I don't know if it's low-hanging fruit, but it certainly seems like it would require AGI to have a system that could given some picture or video input, say what some object is. And along those lines, accept verbal instruction as to what it is if it's wrong in what it thinks. I bring that up because I'm trying to get through a book on formal semantics called _What is Meaning?_, and I've been really struck that there clearly is some ability to call things however we call them, but I surely don't see how it's done. It does not seem like it could be a simple thing. And we do call things by different names according to context and need. andi On Sat, August 7, 2010 9:10 pm, Ben Goertzel wrote: Hi, A fellow AGI researcher sent me this request, so I figured I'd throw it out to you guys I'm putting together an AGI pitch for investors and thinking of low hanging fruit applications to argue for. I'm intentionally not involving any mechanics (robots, moving parts, etc.). I'm focusing on voice (i.e. conversational agents) and perhaps vision-based systems. Hellen Keller AGI, if you will :) Along those lines, I'd like any ideas you may have that would fall under this description. I need to substantiate the case for such AGI technology by making an argument for high-value apps. All ideas are welcome. All serious responses will be appreciated!! Also, I would be grateful if we could keep this thread closely focused on direct answers to this question, rather than digressive discussions on Helen Keller, the nature of AGI, the definition of AGI versus narrow AI, the achievability or unachievability of AGI, etc. etc. If you think the question is bad or meaningless or unclear or whatever, that's fine, but please start a new thread with a different subject line to make your point. If the discussion is useful, my intention is to mine the answers into a compact list to convey to him Thanks! 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/?; 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity
If you have a *physical* address an avatar needs to *physically* be there. - Roxxy lives here with her friend Miss Al-Fasaq the belly dancer. Chat lines as Steve describes are not too difficult. In fact the girls (real) on a chat site have a sheet in front of them that gives the appropriate response to a variety of questions. The WI (Women's Institute) did an investigation of the sex industry, and one volunteer actually became a *chatterbox*. Do such entities exist? Probably not in the sex industry, at least not yet. Why do I believe this? Basically because if the sex industry were moving in this direction it would without a doubt be looking at some metric of brain activity to give the customer the best erotic experience. You don't ask Are you gay? You have men making love to men, women-men and women-women. Fing out what gives the customer the biggest kick. You set the story of the porm video. In terms of security I am impressed by the fact that large numbers of bombs have been constructed that don't work and could not work. Hydrogen Peroxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide can only be prepared in the pure state by chemical reactions. It is unlikely (see notes on vapour pressure at 50C) that anything viable could be produced by distillation on a kitchen stove. Is this due to deliberately misleading information? Have I given the game away? Certainly misleading information is being sent out. However it is probably not being sent out by robotic entities. After all nothing has yet achieved Turing status. In the case of sex it may not be necessary for the client to believe that he is confronted by a *real woman*. A top of the range masturbator/sex aid may not have to pretend to be anything else. - Ian Parker On 8 August 2010 07:30, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Well, these artificial identities need to complete a loop. Say the artificial identity acquires an email address, phone#, a physical address, a bank account, logs onto Amazon and purchases stuff automatically it needs to be able to put money into its bank account. So let's say it has a low profit scheme to scalp day trading profits with its stock trading account. That's the loop, it has to be able to make money to make purchases. And then automatically file its taxes with the IRS. Then it's really starting to look like a full legally functioning identity. It could persist in this fashion for years. I would bet that these identities already exist. What happens when there are many, many of them? Would we even know? John *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, August 07, 2010 8:17 PM *To:* agi *Subject:* Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity Ian, I recall several years ago that a group in Britain was operating just such a chatterbox as you explained, but did so on numerous sex-related sites, all running simultaneously. The chatterbox emulated young girls looking for sex. The program just sat there doing its thing on numerous sites, and whenever a meeting was set up, it would issue a message to its human owners to alert the police to go and arrest the pedophiles at the arranged time and place. No human interaction was needed between arrests. I can imagine an adaptation, wherein a program claims to be manufacturing explosives, and is looking for other people to deliver those explosives. With such a story line, there should be no problem arranging deliveries, at which time you would arrest the would-be bombers. I wish I could tell you more about the British project, but they were VERY secretive. I suspect that some serious Googling would yield much more. Hopefully you will find this helpful. Steve = On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to see what other people's views were.My own view of the risks is as follows. If the Turing Machine is built to be as isomorphic with humans as possible, it would be incredibly dangerous. Indeed I feel that the biological model is far more dangerous than the mathematical. If on the other hand the TM was *not* isomorphic and made no attempt to be, the dangers would be a lot less. Most Turing/Löbner entries are chatterboxes that work on databases. The database being filled as you chat. Clearly the system cannot go outside its database and is safe. There is in fact some use for such a chatterbox. Clearly a Turing machine would be able to infiltrate militant groups however it was constructed. As for it pretending to be stupid, it would have to know in what direction it had to be stupid. Hence it would have to be a good psychologist. Suppose it logged onto a jihardist website, as well as being able to pass itself off as a true adherent, it could also look at the other members and assess their level of commitment and knowledge. I think that the true Turing/Löbner test is not working in a laboratory environment but they
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And matter is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your basic world/visual-world analytic units wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for chair or table. Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call fundamental analysis - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/fundamental unit. From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) Learning about the world won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning? The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to. 3) Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes it general! Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. You are only right that I haven't demonstrated it. I will address this in the next paper and continue adding details over the next few drafts. As a simple argument against your counter argument... If that were true that we could not understand the world using a limited set of rules or concepts, how is it that a human baby, with a design that is predetermined to interact with the world a certain way by its DNA, is able to deal with unforeseen things that were not preprogrammed? That’s right, the baby was born with a set of rules that robustly allows it to deal with the unforeseen. It has a limited set of rules used to learn. That is equivalent to a limited set of “concepts” (i.e. rules) that would allow a computer to deal with the unforeseen. Interesting philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers' fantasies of take-off. You can compare it to the idea that all science can be reduced to physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But it's demonstrably not so. No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter. Oh, I forgot, that is the case :) It is a limited set of concepts, yet it can create everything we know. You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the NEW - the unfamiliar, that wh. cannot be broken down into familiar categories, - and then find ways of dealing with it ad hoc. You don't seem to understand that even the things you think cannot be broken down, can be. Dave 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike, We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous arguments to you. You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? The mere fact that you can refer to a chair means that it is a recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. Dave On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And matter is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your basic world/visual-world analytic units wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for chair or table. Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call fundamental analysis - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/fundamental unit. *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) Learning about the world won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning? The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to. 3) Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes it general! Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue. You are only right that I haven't demonstrated it. I will address this in the next paper and continue adding details over the next few drafts. As a simple argument against your counter argument... If that were true that we could not understand the world using a limited set of rules or concepts, how is it that a human baby, with a design that is predetermined to interact with the world a certain way by its DNA, is able to deal with unforeseen things that were not preprogrammed? That’s right, the baby was born with a set of rules that robustly allows it to deal with the unforeseen. It has a limited set of rules used to learn. That is equivalent to a limited set of “concepts” (i.e. rules) that would allow a computer to deal with the unforeseen. Interesting philosophically because it implicitly underlies AGI-ers' fantasies of take-off. You can compare it to the idea that all science can be reduced to physics. If it could, then an AGI could indeed take-off. But it's demonstrably not so. No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter. Oh, I forgot, that is the case :) It is a limited set of concepts, yet it can create everything we know. You don't seem to understand that the problem of AGI is to deal with the NEW - the unfamiliar, that
Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps
1. Basic object recognition can be used in camera phones to identify people in front or objects in front. This can be used by blind people to navigate their environment better. 2. AGI expert systems can be used to diagnose diseases. thanks, Deepak On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi, A fellow AGI researcher sent me this request, so I figured I'd throw it out to you guys I'm putting together an AGI pitch for investors and thinking of low hanging fruit applications to argue for. I'm intentionally not involving any mechanics (robots, moving parts, etc.). I'm focusing on voice (i.e. conversational agents) and perhaps vision-based systems. Hellen Keller AGI, if you will :) Along those lines, I'd like any ideas you may have that would fall under this description. I need to substantiate the case for such AGI technology by making an argument for high-value apps. All ideas are welcome. All serious responses will be appreciated!! Also, I would be grateful if we could keep this thread closely focused on direct answers to this question, rather than digressive discussions on Helen Keller, the nature of AGI, the definition of AGI versus narrow AI, the achievability or unachievability of AGI, etc. etc. If you think the question is bad or meaningless or unclear or whatever, that's fine, but please start a new thread with a different subject line to make your point. If the discussion is useful, my intention is to mine the answers into a compact list to convey to him Thanks! 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
:) what you don't realize is that patterns don't have to be strictly limited to the actual physical structure. In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. If you think this is not a sufficient refutation of your argument, then please don't argue with me regarding it anymore. I know your opinion and respectfully disagree. If you don't accept my counter argument, there is no point to continuing this back and forth ad finitum. Dave On Aug 8, 2010 9:29 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: You're waffling. You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you. Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two. You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do you? Yes/no. No. That's not funny, that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and through. *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous arguments to you. You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? The mere fact that you can refer to a chair means that it is a recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. Dave On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And matter is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your basic world/visual-world analytic units wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for chair or table. Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call fundamental analysis - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/fundamental unit. *From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) Learning about the world won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI learning? The difference is in what you can or can't learn about and what tasks you can or can't perform. If the AI is able to receive input about anything it needs to know about in the same formats that it knows how to understand and analyze, it can reason about anything it needs to. 3) Breaking things down into generic components allows us to learn about and handle the vast majority of things we want to learn about. This is what makes it general! Wild assumption, unproven or at all demonstrated and untrue.
Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps
Just one point about Forex, your first entry. This is purely a time series analysis as I understand it. It is narrow AI in fact. With AGI you would expect interviews with the executives of listed companies, just as the big investment houses do. AGI would be data mining of everything about a company as well as time series analysis. - Ian Parker On 8 August 2010 02:35, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Ben, -The oft-mentioned stock-market prediction; -data mining, especially for corporate data such as customer behavior, sales prediction, etc; -decision support systems; -personal assistants; -chatbots (think, an ipod that talks to you when you are lonely); -educational uses including human-like artificial teachers, but also including smart presentation-of-material software which decides what practice problem to ask you next, when to give tips, etc; -industrial design (engineering); ... Good luck to him! --Abram On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi, A fellow AGI researcher sent me this request, so I figured I'd throw it out to you guys I'm putting together an AGI pitch for investors and thinking of low hanging fruit applications to argue for. I'm intentionally not involving any mechanics (robots, moving parts, etc.). I'm focusing on voice (i.e. conversational agents) and perhaps vision-based systems. Hellen Keller AGI, if you will :) Along those lines, I'd like any ideas you may have that would fall under this description. I need to substantiate the case for such AGI technology by making an argument for high-value apps. All ideas are welcome. All serious responses will be appreciated!! Also, I would be grateful if we could keep this thread closely focused on direct answers to this question, rather than digressive discussions on Helen Keller, the nature of AGI, the definition of AGI versus narrow AI, the achievability or unachievability of AGI, etc. etc. If you think the question is bad or meaningless or unclear or whatever, that's fine, but please start a new thread with a different subject line to make your point. If the discussion is useful, my intention is to mine the answers into a compact list to convey to him Thanks! 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic *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 --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Stocks; was Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps
Ian, Be courteous-- Ben asked specifically that any arguments about which things are narrow-ai should start a separate topic. Yea, I did not intend to rule out any possible sources of information for the stock market prediction task. Ben has worked on a system which looked on the web for chatter about specific companies, for example. Even if it was just stock data being used, it wouldn't be just time-series analysis. It would at least be planning as well. Really, though, it includes acting with the behavior of potential adversaries in mind (like game-playing). Even if it *were* just time-series analysis, though, I think it would be a decent AGI application. That is because I think AGI technology should be good at time-series analysis! In my opinion, a good AGI learning algorithm should be useful for such tasks. So, yes, many of my examples could be attacked via narrow AI; but I think they would be handled *better* by AGI. That's why they are low-hanging fruit-- they are (hopefully) on the border. --Abram On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: Just one point about Forex, your first entry. This is purely a time series analysis as I understand it. It is narrow AI in fact. With AGI you would expect interviews with the executives of listed companies, just as the big investment houses do. AGI would be data mining of everything about a company as well as time series analysis. - Ian Parker On 8 August 2010 02:35, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Ben, -The oft-mentioned stock-market prediction; -data mining, especially for corporate data such as customer behavior, sales prediction, etc; -decision support systems; -personal assistants; -chatbots (think, an ipod that talks to you when you are lonely); -educational uses including human-like artificial teachers, but also including smart presentation-of-material software which decides what practice problem to ask you next, when to give tips, etc; -industrial design (engineering); ... Good luck to him! --Abram On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi, A fellow AGI researcher sent me this request, so I figured I'd throw it out to you guys I'm putting together an AGI pitch for investors and thinking of low hanging fruit applications to argue for. I'm intentionally not involving any mechanics (robots, moving parts, etc.). I'm focusing on voice (i.e. conversational agents) and perhaps vision-based systems. Hellen Keller AGI, if you will :) Along those lines, I'd like any ideas you may have that would fall under this description. I need to substantiate the case for such AGI technology by making an argument for high-value apps. All ideas are welcome. All serious responses will be appreciated!! Also, I would be grateful if we could keep this thread closely focused on direct answers to this question, rather than digressive discussions on Helen Keller, the nature of AGI, the definition of AGI versus narrow AI, the achievability or unachievability of AGI, etc. etc. If you think the question is bad or meaningless or unclear or whatever, that's fine, but please start a new thread with a different subject line to make your point. If the discussion is useful, my intention is to mine the answers into a compact list to convey to him Thanks! 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic *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 *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 -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps
Ben On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I need to substantiate the case for such AGI technology by making an argument for high-value apps. There is interesting hidden value in some stuff. In the case of Dr. Eliza, it provide a communication pathway to sick people, which is EXACTLY what a research institution needs to support itself. I think you may be on to something here - looking for high-value. Steve --- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
There is nothing visual or physical or geometric or quasi geometric about what you're saying - no shapes or forms whatsoever to your idea of patterns or chair or sitting. Given an opportunity to discuss physical concretes - and what actually physically constitutes a chair, or any other concept/class-of-forms is fascinating and central to AGI - you retreat into vague abstractions while claiming to be interested in visual AGI. Fine, let's leave it there. From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:12 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 :) what you don't realize is that patterns don't have to be strictly limited to the actual physical structure. In fact, the chair patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. If you think this is not a sufficient refutation of your argument, then please don't argue with me regarding it anymore. I know your opinion and respectfully disagree. If you don't accept my counter argument, there is no point to continuing this back and forth ad finitum. Dave On Aug 8, 2010 9:29 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: You're waffling. You say there's a pattern for chair - DRAW IT. Attached should help you. Analyse the chairs given in terms of basic visual units. Or show how any basic units can be applied to them. Draw one or two. You haven't identified any basic visual units - you don't have any. Do you? Yes/no. No. That's not funny, that's a waste.. And woolly and imprecise through and through. From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:59 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, We've argued about this over and over and over. I don't want to repeat previous arguments to you. You have no proof that the world cannot be broken down into simpler concepts and components. The only proof you attempt to propose are your example problems that *you* don't understand how to solve. Just because *you* cannot solve them, doesn't mean they cannot be solved at all using a certain methodology. So, who is really making wild assumptions? The mere fact that you can refer to a chair means that it is a recognizable pattern. LOL. That fact that you don't realize this is quite funny. Dave On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Dave:No... it is equivalent to saying that the whole world can be modeled as if everything was made up of matter And matter is... ? Huh? You clearly don't realise that your thinking is seriously woolly - and you will pay a heavy price in lost time. What are your basic world/visual-world analytic units wh. you are claiming to exist? You thought - perhaps think still - that *concepts* wh. are pretty fundamental intellectual units of analysis at a certain level, could be expressed as, or indeed, were patterns. IOW there's a fundamental pattern for chair or table. Absolute nonsense. And a radical failure to understand the basic nature of concepts which is that they are *freeform* schemas, incapable of being expressed either as patterns or programs. You had merely assumed that concepts could be expressed as patterns,but had never seriously, visually analysed it. Similarly you are merely assuming that the world can be analysed into some kind of visual units - but you haven't actually done the analysis, have you? You don't have any of these basic units to hand, do you? If you do, I suggest, reply instantly, naming a few. You won't be able to do it. They don't exist. Your whole approach to AGI is based on variations of what we can call fundamental analysis - and it's wrong. God/Evolution hasn't built the world with any kind of geometric, or other consistent, bricks. He/It is a freeform designer. You have to start thinking outside the box/brick/fundamental unit. From: David Jones Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:12 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 Mike, I took your comments into consideration and have been updating my paper to make sure these problems are addressed. See more comments below. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: 1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear why your approach is one and not the other I removed this because my audience is for AI researchers... this is AGI 101. I think it's clear that my design defines general as being able to handle the vast majority of things we want the AI to handle without requiring a change in design. 2) Learning about the world won't cut it -
Re: Stocks; was Re: [agi] Help requested: Making a list of (non-robotic) AGI low hanging fruit apps
OK Ben is then one step ahead of Forex. Point is time series analysis, although it is narrow AI can be extremely powerful. The situation about * sentiment* is different from that of Poker where there is a single adversary bluffing. A time series analysis encompasses the *ensemble* of different opinions. Statistical programs can model this accurately. Ben presumably has techniques for mining the data about companies. The difficulty, as I see it, of translating this into a stock exchange prediction is the weighting of different factors. What in fact you will need to complete the task is something like conjoint analysis. We need, for example, to get an index for innovation. We can see how important this is and how important other factors are by doing something like conjoint analysis. Management will affect long term stock values. Forex is concerned with day to day fluctuations where management performance (except in terms of the manipulation of shares) is not important. Conjoint analysis has been used by managements to indicate how they should be managing. Ben should be able to tell managements how they can optimise the value of their company based on historical data. This is real AGI and there is a close tie up between prediction and how a company should be managed. We know as a matter of historical record, for example, that where you have to reduce a budget deficit you do it with 2 parts reduction in public expenditure and 1 part rise in taxation. The Con/Lib Dem coalition is going for a 3:1 ratio. There will no double be other things that will come out of data-mining. Sorry no disrespect intended. On 8 August 2010 18:09, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, Be courteous-- Ben asked specifically that any arguments about which things are narrow-ai should start a separate topic. Yea, I did not intend to rule out any possible sources of information for the stock market prediction task. Ben has worked on a system which looked on the web for chatter about specific companies, for example. Even if it was just stock data being used, it wouldn't be just time-series analysis. It would at least be planning as well. Really, though, it includes acting with the behavior of potential adversaries in mind (like game-playing). Even if it *were* just time-series analysis, though, I think it would be a decent AGI application. That is because I think AGI technology should be good at time-series analysis! In my opinion, a good AGI learning algorithm should be useful for such tasks. So, yes, many of my examples could be attacked via narrow AI; but I think they would be handled *better* by AGI. That's why they are low-hanging fruit-- they are (hopefully) on the border. --Abram On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: Just one point about Forex, your first entry. This is purely a time series analysis as I understand it. It is narrow AI in fact. With AGI you would expect interviews with the executives of listed companies, just as the big investment houses do. AGI would be data mining of everything about a company as well as time series analysis. - Ian Parker On 8 August 2010 02:35, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Ben, -The oft-mentioned stock-market prediction; -data mining, especially for corporate data such as customer behavior, sales prediction, etc; -decision support systems; -personal assistants; -chatbots (think, an ipod that talks to you when you are lonely); -educational uses including human-like artificial teachers, but also including smart presentation-of-material software which decides what practice problem to ask you next, when to give tips, etc; -industrial design (engineering); ... Good luck to him! --Abram On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi, A fellow AGI researcher sent me this request, so I figured I'd throw it out to you guys I'm putting together an AGI pitch for investors and thinking of low hanging fruit applications to argue for. I'm intentionally not involving any mechanics (robots, moving parts, etc.). I'm focusing on voice (i.e. conversational agents) and perhaps vision-based systems. Hellen Keller AGI, if you will :) Along those lines, I'd like any ideas you may have that would fall under this description. I need to substantiate the case for such AGI technology by making an argument for high-value apps. All ideas are welcome. All serious responses will be appreciated!! Also, I would be grateful if we could keep this thread closely focused on direct answers to this question, rather than digressive discussions on Helen Keller, the nature of AGI, the definition of AGI versus narrow AI, the achievability or unachievability of AGI, etc. etc. If you think the question is bad or meaningless or unclear or whatever, that's fine, but please start a new thread with a different subject line to make your point. If the
