Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[Ian Parker]

Just two quick comments. CCTV is already networked, the Police can track
smoothly from one camera to another. Second comment is that if you (say)
taking a heavy load upstairs you need 2 robots one holding each end. A
single PC can control them both. In fact a robot workshop will be a kind of
"cloud", in terms of "cloud" computing.


  - Ian Parker

On 12 August 2010 05:46, John G. Rose  wrote:

> I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.
>
>
>
> And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.
>
>
>
> But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked
> mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy
> issues...
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com]
>
> Way too pessimistic in my opinion.
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose 
> wrote:
>
> Aww, so cute.
>
>
>
> I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
> sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
> collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed
> robo-network.
>
>
>
> So cuddly!
>
>
>
> And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in
> over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the
> most for access.
>
>
>
> Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)
>
>
>
> John
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts

[Ian Parker]

Someone who really believes that P=NP should go to Saudi Arabia or the
Emirates and crack the Blackberry code.


  - Ian Parker

On 12 August 2010 06:10, John G. Rose  wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
> Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
> >
> > David,
> > I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer-
> > related mathematical work of course.  My remark was directed toward John
> > who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated
> > mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a
> > substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the
> > contemporary problem.  I was saying that unless this required mathemagic
> > then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of
> > mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary
> > mathematics.  This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by
> sanitized
> > formal representations any more than saying that your message is a
> sanitized
> > formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer
> > mathematics in order to send it.  In other words I was challenging John
> at
> that
> > point to provide some kind of evidence for his view.
> >
>
> I don't know if we need to create some new mathemagics, a breakthrough, or
> whatever. I just think using existing math to engineer it, using the math
> like if was software is what should be done. But you may be right perhaps
> proof of P=NP something similar is needed. I don't think so though.
>
> The main goal would be to leverage existing math to compensate for
> unnecessary and/or impossible computation. We don't need to re-evolve the
> wheel as we already figured that out. And computers are v. slow compared to
> other physical computations that are performed in the natural physical
> world.
>
> Maybe not - developing a system from scratch that discovers all of the
> discoveries over the millennia of science and civilization? Would that be
> possible?
>
> > I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions
> would
> > make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way
> beyond
> > where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a
> simulation
> > of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about.  (A simulation
> is
> > not the same as the actual thing.)
> >
> > I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is
> to it.  I
> > have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and
> > informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the
> > application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories.  I don't
> expect
> you
> > to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in
> mind
> > for future discussions.
>
> Using available skills and tools the best we can use them. And, inventing
> new tools by engineering utilitarian and efficient mathematical structure.
> Math is just like software in all this but way more powerful. And using the
> right math, the most general where it is called for and specific/narrow
> when
> needed. I don't see a problem with the specific most of the time but I
> don't
> know if many people get the general. Though it may be an error or lack of
> understanding on my part...
>
> John
>
>
>
> ---
> 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[agi] Re: [agi] P≠NP

[Ian Parker]

This is a very powerful argument, but is not quite a rigorous
proof. Thermodynamics is like saying that because all zeros below 10^20 have
a real part of 0.5 therefore there are no non trivial zeros for which that
is not the case. What I am saying is pedantic, very pedantic but will still
affect Clay's view of the matter.

You will *not* be able to decode Blackberry, of course.


  - Ian Parker

2010/8/12 John G. Rose 

> BTW here is the latest one:
>
>
>
> http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[Mike Tintner]

John,

Any more detailed thoughts about its precise handling capabilities? Did it, 
first, not pick up the duck independently,  (without human assistance)? If it 
did,  what do you think would be the range of its object handling?  (I had an 
immediate question about all this - have asked the site for further 
clarificiation - but nothing yet).


From: John G. Rose 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM
To: agi 
Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao


I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.

 

And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.

 

But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked 
mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy 
issues...  

 

John

 

From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] 



Way too pessimistic in my opinion. 

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose  wrote:

Aww, so cute.

 

I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory 
information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting 
personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network.

 

So cuddly!

 

And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over 
the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most 
for access.

 

Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)

 

John

  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

RE: [agi] Nao Nao

[John G. Rose]

Typically the demo is some of the best that it can do. It looks like the
robot is a mass produced model that has some really basic handling
capabilities, not that it is made to perform work. It could still have
relatively advanced microprocessor and networking system, IOW parts of the
brain could run on centralized servers. I don't think they did that BUT it
could.

 

But it looks like one Nao can talk to another Nao. What's needed here is a
standardized robot communication protocol. So a Nao could talk to a vacuum
cleaner or a video cam or any other device that supports the protocol.
Companies may resist this at first as they want to grab market share and
don't understand the benefit.

 

John

 

From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:56 AM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Nao Nao

 

John,

 

Any more detailed thoughts about its precise handling capabilities? Did it,
first, not pick up the duck independently,  (without human assistance)? If
it did,  what do you think would be the range of its object handling?  (I
had an immediate question about all this - have asked the site for further
clarificiation - but nothing yet).

 

From: John G. Rose   

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM

To: agi   

Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao

 

I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.

 

And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.

 

But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked
mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy
issues...  

 

John

 

From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] 

Way too pessimistic in my opinion. 

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose 
wrote:

Aww, so cute.

 

I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed
robo-network.

 

So cuddly!

 

And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in
over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the
most for access.

 

Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)

 

John


agi |   Archives
 |
 Modify Your Subscription 

  


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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[Mike Tintner]

By not "made to perform work", you mean that it is not sturdy enough? Are any 
half-way AGI robots made to perform work, vs production line robots? (I think 
the idea of performing useful work should be a goal).

The protocol is obviously a good idea, but you're not suggesting it per se will 
lead to AGI?


From: John G. Rose 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:17 PM
To: agi 
Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao


Typically the demo is some of the best that it can do. It looks like the robot 
is a mass produced model that has some really basic handling capabilities, not 
that it is made to perform work. It could still have relatively advanced 
microprocessor and networking system, IOW parts of the brain could run on 
centralized servers. I don't think they did that BUT it could.

 

But it looks like one Nao can talk to another Nao. What's needed here is a 
standardized robot communication protocol. So a Nao could talk to a vacuum 
cleaner or a video cam or any other device that supports the protocol. 
Companies may resist this at first as they want to grab market share and don't 
understand the benefit.

 

John

 

From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:56 AM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Nao Nao

 

John,

 

Any more detailed thoughts about its precise handling capabilities? Did it, 
first, not pick up the duck independently,  (without human assistance)? If it 
did,  what do you think would be the range of its object handling?  (I had an 
immediate question about all this - have asked the site for further 
clarificiation - but nothing yet).

 

From: John G. Rose 

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM

To: agi 

Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao

 

I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.

 

And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.

 

But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked 
mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy 
issues...  

 

John

 

From: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com] 

Way too pessimistic in my opinion. 

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose  wrote:

Aww, so cute.

 

I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays sensory 
information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all collecting 
personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed robo-network.

 

So cuddly!

 

And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in over 
the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the most 
for access.

 

Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)

 

John

  agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 
 
 

  agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
 
 

 

  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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[Steve Richfield]

Ian, et al,

2010/8/10 Ian Parker 

>
> A μ sec is nothing even when we are considering time critical functions
> like balance.
>

Not true!!!

What most people miss are the stability requirements for closed loop control
systems. These are crystal clear in an analog world, but some (many?) people
think that they don't apply in a digital world. They do. While the thing you
are controlling may live in a millisecond world, you can't have a sharp
frequency cutoff point, or the system absolutely WILL oscillate at that
frequency for complex reasons. If you don't understand those reasons, then
you shouldn't be working in this area. So, how sharp is "sharp". The rate of
roll-off must be <12db/octave, as 12db/octave represents a 180 degree phase
shift, and any more makes it positive feedback. This must continue to high
frequencies, at least past the point of "unity gain", meaning that any
positive feedback dampens itself out because there is less than unity gain.

Lets take an example. Suppose your feedback system senses things and
administers corrections, the corrections being, say, at a gain of 1000 times
the error, and you want the feedback to work >1kHz. Rolling off at
6db/octave to stay away from the 12db/octave unstable point, means that the
permissible unity gain point is 1MHz. Of course, for really precise
positioning you might want higher gain and frequency stability, which pushes
you above 1MHz.

Note that delays look just like phase-linear low-pass filters, and indeed
some electronic designs use phase-linear low-pass filters to achieve short
delays. Hopefully you noticed "low pass" here, namely, delays introduce
their own VARIABLE phase shifts so that at higher frequencies, they become
positive feedback and fundamentally unstable.

IMHO the "logic" that does the feedback control MUST NOT incorporate a
network, unless that network is VERY short, e.g. in the same room. Even
then, network protocols will probably delay things too long to run stably.

Hence, while networks may be OK for higher functions, forget them as part of
any real-world feedback loops.

Note in passing that this SAME discussion applies to neurons in complex
feedback configurations (like brains). People now think that neurons are  *S
L O W*  when they may be just "compensated" (using analog terminology,
meaning that their high frequency response rolls off at ~6 db/octave) to
operate in a feedback world. Note that they ARE able to do some things
REALLY FAST (e.g. fast edges, doubled pulses, etc.) so perhaps they are
really running in a world that is ~2 orders of magnitude faster than anyone
(else) has yet thought possible. This would RADICALLY change projections of
how much computer it would take to emulate a brain, perhaps by ~2 orders of
magnitude.

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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[agi] Fwd: [singularity] NEWS: Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+

[Ben Goertzel]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Natasha Vita-More 
Date: Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Subject: [singularity] NEWS: Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+
To: singularity 


 Friends,

It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of
Directors of Humanity+.

Today is the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for
Max as a new Board member.   Voting opens this weekend!

Please join now!  http://humanityplus.org/join/

Thank you for your support of Max!

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More 

(If you have any questions, please email me off list.)
  *singularity* | Archives
 |
ModifyYour
Subscription




-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky



---
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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[Ian Parker]

We are getting down to some of the nitty gritty. To a considerable extent
what is holding robotics back is the lack of common standards. We can think
about what we might need. One would instinctively start with a CAD/CAM
package like ProEngineer. We can thus descibe a robot in terms of assembles
and parts. A single joint is a part, a human finger has 3 joints is an
assembly. A hand is an assembly. We get this by using CAD.

A robotic language has to be composed as follows.

class Part{

}

class Assemble{

}

An assembly/part will have a position. The simplest command is to move from
one position to another. Note that a position is a multidimensional quantity
and describes the positions of each part.

"*Pick up ball*" is a complex command. We first have to localise the ball,
determine the position required to grasp the ball any then put the parts
into a position so that the ball moves into a new position.

Sounds complicated? Yes it is, but a lot of the basic work has already been
done. The first time a task is performed the system would have to compute
from first principles. The second time it would have some stored positions.
The system could "*learn*".

A position is a vector (multidimensional) 2 robots will have twice the
dimensions of a single robot.

"*Move bed upstairs*" is a twin robot problem, but no different in principle
from a single robot problem. Above all I think we must start off
mathematically and construct a language of maximum generality. It should be
pointed out too that there programs which will evaluate forces in a
multi-limb environment. In fact matrix theory was devised in the 19th
century.


  - Ian Parker

On 12 August 2010 15:17, John G. Rose  wrote:

> Typically the demo is some of the best that it can do. It looks like the
> robot is a mass produced model that has some really basic handling
> capabilities, not that it is made to perform work. It could still have
> relatively advanced microprocessor and networking system, IOW parts of the
> brain could run on centralized servers. I don't think they did that BUT it
> could.
>
>
>
> But it looks like one Nao can talk to another Nao. What's needed here is a
> standardized robot communication protocol. So a Nao could talk to a vacuum
> cleaner or a video cam or any other device that supports the protocol.
> Companies may resist this at first as they want to grab market share and
> don't understand the benefit.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:56 AM
> *To:* agi
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Nao Nao
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Any more detailed thoughts about its precise handling capabilities? Did it,
> first, not pick up the duck independently,  (without human assistance)? If
> it did,  what do you think would be the range of its object handling?  (I
> had an immediate question about all this - have asked the site for further
> clarificiation - but nothing yet).
>
>
>
> *From:* John G. Rose 
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM
>
> *To:* agi 
>
> *Subject:* RE: [agi] Nao Nao
>
>
>
> I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.
>
>
>
> And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.
>
>
>
> But this is a paradigm change happening where we will have many networked
> mechanical entities. This opens up a whole new world of security and privacy
> issues...
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com]
>
> Way too pessimistic in my opinion.
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose 
> wrote:
>
> Aww, so cute.
>
>
>
> I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
> sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
> collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed
> robo-network.
>
>
>
> So cuddly!
>
>
>
> And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in
> over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the
> most for access.
>
>
>
> Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)
>
>
>
> John
>
> *agi* | Archives 
> | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
>
> 
>
> *agi* | Archives 
> | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
>
> 
>
>
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Steve Richfield]

Ben,

There is obvious confusion here. MOST mutations harm, but occasionally one
helps. By selecting for a particular difficult-to-achieve thing, like long
lifespan, we can discard the harmful mutations while selecting for the
helpful ones. However, selecting for something harmful and easy to achieve,
like the presence of genes that shorten lifespan, the selection process is
SO non-specific that it can't tell us much of anything. There are countless
mutations that kill WITHOUT conferring compensatory advantages. I could see
stressing the flies in various ways without controlling for lifespan, but
controlling for short lifespan in the absence of such stresses would seem to
be completely worthless. Of course, once stressed, you would also be seeing
genes to combat those (irrelevant) stresses.

In short, I still haven't heard words that suggest that this can go
anywhere, though it sure would be wonderful (like you and I might live twice
as long) if some workable path could be found.

I still suspect that the best path is in analyzing the DNA of long-living
people, rather than that of fruit flies. Perhaps there is some way to
combine the two approaches?

Steve

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Steve Richfield <
> steve.richfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ben,
>>
>> It seems COMPLETELY obvious (to me) that almost any mutation would shorten
>> lifespan, so we shouldn't expect to learn much from it.
>
>
>
> Why then do the Methuselah flies live 5x as long as normal flies?  You're
> conjecturing this is unrelated to the dramatically large number of SNPs with
> very different frequencies in the two classes of populations???
>
> ben
>
>
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com