[agi] Probabilty Processor
--- quotes The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency financed the basic research necessary to create a processor that thinks in terms of probabilities instead of the certainties of ones and zeros. (...) So we have been rebuilding probability computing from the gate level all the way up to the processor. (...) The probability processing that Lyric has invented doesn't do the on/off processing of a normal logic circuit, but rather makes transistors function more like tiny dimmer switches, letting electron flow rates represent the probability of something happening. (...) Reynolds says that a data center filled with servers that are calculating probabilities for, say, a financial model, will be able to consolidate from thousands of servers down to a single GP5 appliance to calculate probabilities. (...) Digital logic that takes 500 transistors to do a probability multiply operation, for instance, can be done with just a few transistors on the Lyric chips. With an expected factor of 1,000 improvement over general purpose CPUs running probability algorithms, the energy savings of using GP5s instead of, say, x64 chips will be immense. (...) programming language, which is called Probability Synthesis to Bayesian Logic, or PSBL for short. --- Hm. Wow? (DARPA funds Mr Spock on a Chip) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/17/lyric_probability_processor/ --- 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] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote I would like your opinion on *proofs* which involve an unproven hypothesis, I've no elaborated opinion on 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI Int'l Relations
Ian Parker wrote McNamara's dictum seems on the face of it to contradict the validity of Psychology as a science. I don't think so. That in unforseen events people switch to improvisation isn't suprising. Even an AGI, confronted with a novel situation and lacking data and models and rules for that, has to switch to ad-hoc heuristics. Psychology, if is is a valid science can be used for modelling. True. And it's used for that purpose. In fact some models of psychology are so good that the simulation's results are consistent with what is empirically found in the real world. Some of what McNamara has to say seems to me to be a little bit contradictory. On the one hand he espouses *gut feeling*. On the other he says you should be prepared to change your mind. I don't see the contradiction. Changing one's mind refers to one's assumption and conceptual framings. You always operate under uncertainty and should be open for re-evaluation of what you believe. And the lower the probability of an event, the lesser are you prepared for it and you switch to gut feelings since you lack empirical experience. Likely that one's gut feelings operate within one's frame of mind. So these are two different levels. John Prescott at the Chilcot Iraq inquiry said that the test of politicians was not hindsight, but courage and leadership. What the does he mean. Rule of thumb is that it's better to do something than to do nothing. You act, others have to react. As long as you lead the game, you can correct your own errors. But when you hesitate, the other parties will move first and you eat what they hand out to you. And don't forget that the people still prefer alpha-males that lead, not those that deeply think. It's more important to unite the tribe with screams and jumps against the enemy than to reason about budgets or rule of law--gawd how boring... :) It seems that *getting things right* is not a priority for politicians. Keeping things running is the priority. --- Now to the next posting --- This is an interesting article. Indeed. Google is certain to uncover the *real motivators.* Sex and power. --- 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] AGI Int'l Relations
Steve Richfield wrote Have you ever taken a dispute, completely deconstructed it to determine its structure, engineered a prospective solution, and attempted to implement it? No. How can you, the participants on this forum, hope to ever bring stability That depends on your definition of stability. Progress is often triggered by instability and leads to new forms of instability. There shouldn't be too much instability in the same sense that too much stability is also bad. Similarly, I suspect that demonstrated skill in IR is a prerequisite to creating any sort of effective IR program. There actually were and are successful IR people. It's not all war and disaster out there. And BTW is IR more than just conflicts. Successful trade agreements, migration policies, scientific and technological cooperation are also in the domain of IR. And I'm not looking for an autonomous IR program but ask whether support systems are used and if yes of what sort. For example, the apparently obvious cure for global warming This is now in competition for first place on my list of your world improvement approaches with your idea of housing old men with young women in abandoned mines for breeding a long-living human species. ;) YES. Some say that my proposal for bulldozing the upwind strips of the continents is irrational, not because it won't work, but because it hasn't been experimentally proven. Once past computer simulations, the only way to prove it is to try it. My proposal is to nuke the US and China since they are the two top polluters on Earth. Some say that my proposal is irrational, not because it won't work, but because it hasn't been experimentally proven. The only way to prove it is to try it. Judge for yourself which side of this argument is irrational. Well... :) --- 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] AGI Int'l Relations
Steve Richfield wrote I suspect that this tool could work better than any AGI in the absence of such a tool. I see an AGI more as a support tool that collects and assesses data, creates and evaluates hypotheses, develops goals and plans how to reach them and assists people with advice. The logic stuff would already be built into all that. My simple (and completely unacceptable) cure for this is to tax savings, to force the money back into the economy. You have either consumption or savings. The savings are put back into the economy in form of credits to those who invest the money. --- 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
[agi] AGI Int'l Relations
(If you don't have time to read all this, scroll down to the questions.) I'm writing an article on the role of intelligent systems in the field of International Relations (IR). Why IR? Because in today's (and more so in tomorrow's) world the majority of national policies is influenced by foreign affairs--trade, migration, technology, global issues etc. (And because I got invited to write such an article for the IR community.) Link for a quick overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations The problem of foreign and domestic policy-making is to have appropriate data sources, models of the world and useful goals. Ideally both sides of the equation are brought into balance, which is difficult of course. Modern societies become more pluralistic, the world becomes more polycentric, technologies and social dynamics change faster and the overall scence becomes more complex. That's the trend. To make sense of that all policy/decision-makers have to handle this rising complexity. I know of several (academic) approaches to model IR, conflicts, macroeconomic and social processes. Only few are useful. And fewer are actually used (e.g., tax policy, economic policy). It's possible that some use even narrow AI for specific tasks. But I'm not aware of intelligent systems used by the IR community. From what I see do they rely more on studies done by analysts and news/intelligence reports. So my questions: (1) Do you know of intelligent systems for situational awareness, decision support, policy implementation and control that are used by the IR community (in whatever country)? (2) Or that are proposed to be used? (3) Do you know of any trends into this direction? Like extended C4ISR or ERP systems? (4) Do you know of intelligent systems used in the business world for strategic planning and operational control that could be used in IR? (5) Historical examples? Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn for the real-time control of the planned economy (6) Do you think the following statement is useful? Policy-making is a feedback loop which consists of awareness- decision-planing-action, where every part requires experience, trained cognitive abilites, high speed and precision of perception and assessment. (Background: ideal field for a supporting AGI to work in.) (6) Further comments? Thanks, Jan --- 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] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote Then define your political objectives. No holes, no ambiguity, no forgotten cases. Or does the AGI ask for our feedback during mission? If yes, down to what detail? With Matt's ideas it does exactly that. How does it know when to ask? You give it rules, but those rules can be somehow imperfect. How are its actions monitored and sanctioned? And hopefully it's clear that we are now far from mathematical proof. No we simply add to the axiom pool. Adding is simple, proving is not. Especially when the rules, goals, and constraints are not arithmetic but ontological and normative statements. Wether by NL or formal system, it's error-prone to specify our knowledge of the world (much of it is implicit) and teach it to the AGI. It's similar to law which is similar to math with referenced axioms and definitions and a substitution process. You often find flaws--most are harmless, some are not. Proofs give us islands of certainty in an explored sea within the ocean of the possible. We end up with heuristics. That's what this discussion is about, when I remember right. :) cu Jan --- 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] AGI Int'l Relations
Ian Parker wrote games theory It produced many studies, many strategies, but they weren't used that much in the daily business. It's used more as a general guide. And in times of crisis they preferred to rely on gut feelings. E.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War How do you cut Jerusalem? Israel cuts and the Arabs then decide on the piece they want. That is the simplest model. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (H. L. Mencken) SCNR. :) This brings me to where I came in. How do you deal with irrational decision making. I was hoping that social simulation would be seeking to provide answers. This does not seem to be the case. Models of limited rationality (like bounded rationality) are already used, e.g., in resource mangement land use studies, peace and conflict studies and some more. The problem with those models is to say _how_much_ irrationality there is. We can assume (and model) perfect rationality and then measure the gap. Empirically most actors aren't fully irrational or behave random, so they approach the rational assumptions. What's often more missing is that actors lack information or the means to utilize them. --- 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] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote There are the military costs, Do you realize that you often narrow a discussion down to military issues of the Iraq/Afghanistan theater? Freeloading in social simulation isn't about guys using a plane for free. When you analyse or design a system you look for holes in the system that allow people to exploit it. In complex systems that happens often. Most freeloading isn't much of a problem, just friction, but some have the power to damage the system too much. You have that in the health system, social welfare, subsidies and funding, the usual moral hazard issues in administration, services a.s.o. To come back to AGI: when you hope to design, say, a network of heterogenous neurons (taking Linas' example) you should be interested in excluding mechanisms that allow certain neurons to consume resources without delivering something in return because of the way resource allocation is organized. These freeloading neurons could go undetected for a while but when you scale the network up or confront it with novel inputs they could make it run slow or even break it. If someone were to come along in the guise of social simulation and offer a reduction in these costs the research would pay for itself many times over. SocSim research into peace and conflict studies isn't new. And some people in the community work on the Iraq/Afghanistan issue (for the US). That is the way things should be done. I agree absolutely. We could in fact take steepest descent (Calculus) and GAs and combine them together in a single composite program. This would in fact be quite a useful exercise. Just a note: Social simulation is not so much about GAs. You use agent systems and equation systems. Often you mix both in that you define the agent's behavior and the environment via equations, let the sim run and then describe the results in statistical terms or with curve fitting in equations again. One last point. You say freeloading can cause o society to disintegrate. One society that has come pretty damn close to disintegration is Iraq. The deaths in Iraq were very much due to sectarian blood letting. Unselfishness if you like. Unselfishness gone wrong is a symptom, not a cause. The causes for failed states are different. --- 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] Tweaking a few parameters
A. T. Murray wrote Robot: I AM ANDRU Robot: I AM ANDRU Robot: ANDRU HELPS KIDS Robot: KIDS MAKE ROBOTS Robot: ROBOTS NEED ME Robot: I IS I Robot: I AM ANDRU Robot: ANDRU HELPS KIDS Robot: KIDS MAKE ROBOTS For the first time in our dozen-plus years of developing MindForth, the AI acts like an intelligence struggling to express itself, An artificial retard? We seem to be dealing with a true artificial intelligence here. Definitely. Now we upload the AI Mind to the World Wide Awakening Web. Next stop Singularity Station. :) --- 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] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote What we would want in a *friendly* system would be a set of utilitarian axioms. If we program a machine for winning a war, we must think well what we mean by winning. (Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, 1948) It is also important that AGI is fully axiomatic and proves that 1+1=2 by set theory, as Russell did. Quoting the two important statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Consistency_and_criticisms Gödel's first incompleteness theorem showed that Principia could not be both consistent and complete. and Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that no formal system extending basic arithmetic can be used to prove its own consistency. So in effect your AGI is either crippled but safe or powerful but potentially behaves different from your axiomatic intentions. We will need morality to be axiomatically defined. As constraints, possibly. But we can only check the AGI in runtime for certain behaviors (i.e., while it's active), but we can't prove in advance whether it will break the constraints or not. Get me right: We can do a lot with such formal specifications and we should do them where necessary or appropriate, but we have to understand that our set of guaranteed behavior is a proper subset of the set of all possible behaviors the AGI can execute. It's heuristics in the end. Unselfishness going wrong is in fact a frightening thought. It would in AGI be a symptom of incompatible axioms. Which can happen in a complex system. Suppose system A is monitoring system B. If system Bs resources are being used up A can shut down processes in A. I talked about computer gobledegook. I also have the feeling that with AGI we should be able to get intelligible advice (in NL) about what was going wrong. For this reason it would not be possible to overload AGI. This isn't going to guarantee that system A, B, etc. behave in all ways as intended, except they are all special purpose systems (here: narrow AI). If A, B etc. are AGIs, then this checking is just an heuristic, no guarantee or proof. In a resource limited society freeloading is the biggest issue. All societies are and will be constrained by limited resources. The fundamental fact about Western crime is that very little of it is to do with personal gain or greed. Not that sure whether this statement is correct. It feels wrong from what I know about human behavior. Unselfishness gone wrong is a symptom, not a cause. The causes for failed states are different. Axiomatic contradiction. Cannot occur in a mathematical system. See above... --- 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] AGI Alife
Ian Parker wrote If we program a machine for winning a war, we must think well what we mean by winning. I wasn't thinking about winning a war, I was much more thinking about sexual morality and men kissing. If we program a machine for doing X, we must think well what we mean by X. Now clearer? Winning a war is achieving your political objectives in the war. Simple definition. Then define your political objectives. No holes, no ambiguity, no forgotten cases. Or does the AGI ask for our feedback during mission? If yes, down to what detail? The axioms which we cannot prove should be listed. You can't prove them. Let's list them and all the assumptions. And then what? Cripple the AGI by applying just those theorems we can prove? That excludes of course all those we're uncertain about. And it's not so much a single theorem that's problematic but a system of axioms and inference rules that changes its properties when you modify it or that is incomplete from the beginning. Example (very plain just to make it clearer what I'm talking about): The natural numbers N are closed against addition. But N is not closed against subtraction, since n - m 0 where m n. You can prove the theorem that subtracting a positive number from another number decreases it: http://us2.metamath.org:88/mpegif/ltsubpos.html but you can still have a formal system that runs into problems. In the case of N it's missing closedness, i.e., undefined area. Now transfer this simple example to formal systems in general. You have to prove every formal system as it is, not just a single theorem. The behavior of an AGI isn't a single theorem but a system. The heuristics could be tested in an off line system. Exactly. But by definition heuristics are incomplete, their solution space is smaller than the set of all solutions. No guarantee for the optimal solution, just probabilities 1, elaborated hints. Unselfishness going wrong is in fact a frightening thought. It would in AGI be a symptom of incompatible axioms. Which can happen in a complex system. Only if the definitions are vague. I bet against this. Better to have a system based on *democracy* in some form or other. The rules you mention are goals and constraints. But they are heuristics you check during runtime. --- 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] AGI Alife
Linas Vepstas wrote First my answers to Antonio: 1) What is the role of Digital Evolution (and ALife) in the AGI context? The nearest I can come up with is Goertzel's virtual pre-school idea, where the environment is given and the proto-AGI learns within it. It's certainly possible to place such a proto-AGI into an evolving environment. I'm not sure how helpful this is, since now we also need to make sense of the evolving environment in order to assess what the agent does. But that's far from the synthetic life approach, where environment and agents are usually not that much pre-defined. And from those synth. approaches I know about, they're mostly concerned with replicating natural evolution, adaption, self-organization a.s.o. Some look into the emergence and evolution of cooperation, but that's often very low level and more interested in general properties; far from AGI. 2) Is it possible that some aspects of AGI could self-emerge from the digital evolution of intelligent autonomous agents? I guess it's possible. But I guess one won't come up with a mechanism that works in an AGI system but with interesting properties of an AGI system. Most intelligent agents are faked, not really cognitive or so. In a simulation you see how agents develop/select strategies and what works in an (evolutionary) environment. Like (wild idea now) the ability to assign parts of its cognitive capacity to memory or processing depending on the environmental context (more memory in unchanging and more processing in changing environments). Those properties could be integrated later as a detail of a bigger framework. 3) Is there any research group trying to converge both approaches? My best ad-hoc idea is to scan through the last year's alife conference program, look for papers that are promising, contact the authors and ask whether they are into AGI or know people who are. http://www.ecal2009.org/documents/ECAL2009_program.pdf One of the topics was artificial consciousness and I saw several papers going into this direction, often indirectly. Like the Swarm Cognition and Artificial Life paper on p.34 or the first poster on p.47. Now to Linas' part: Seems like there could be many many interesting questions. Many of these are specialized issues that are researched in alife but more in social simulation. The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html is a good starting point if anyone is interested. cu Jan --- 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 do we hear music
Mike Tintner trolled And maths will handle the examples given : same tunes - different scales, different instruments same face - cartoon, photo same logo - different parts [buildings/ fruits/ human figures] Unfortunately I forgot. The answer is somewhere down there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalue,_eigenvector_and_eigenspace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_identification revealing them to be the same - how exactly? Why should anybody explain that mystery to you? You are not an accepted member of the Grand Lodge of AGI Masons or its affiliates. Or you could take two arseholes - same kind of object, but radically different configurations - maths will show them to belong to the same category, how? How will you do it? By licking them? --- 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] The Collective Brain
Mike Tintner wrote You partly illustrate my point - you talk of artificial brains as if they actually exist That's the magic of thinking in scenarios. For you it may appear as if we couldn't differentiate between reality and a thought experiment. By implicitly pretending that artificial brains exist - in the form of computer programs - you (and most AGI-ers), deflect attention away from all the unsolved dimensions of what is required for an independent brain-cum-living system, natural or artificial. Then bring this topic up. But please in an educated way and not with the same half-understanding of AGI and math you demonstrate here. But to be honest I expect you to talk about this with your usual misunderstandings and then wonder that nobody (positively) reacts on that--and then you'll again run around and whine that we don't get it. (And what's an artificial brain-cum-living system?) Yes you may know these things some times as you say, but most of the time they're forgotten. There are other topics that often require more focus at this time. People are working on details you usually don't understand and don't care to understand. --- 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] Seeking Is-a Functionality
Steve Richfield wrote maybe with percentages attached, so that people could announce that, say, I am 31% of the way to having an AGI. Not useful. AGI is still a hypothetical state and its true composition remains unknown. At best you can measure how much of an AGI plan is completed, but that's not necessarily equal to actually having an AGI. Of course, you could use a human brain as an upper bound, but that's still questionable, because--as I see it--most AGI designs arent' intended to be isomorphic and I don't know how good the brain is understood today that we can use it as an invariant measure. cu Jan --- 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] The Collective Brain
Mike Tintner wrote No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea. Just a way of looking at social support networks. Even social philosophers centuries ago had similar ideas--they were lacking our technical understanding and used analogies from biology (organicism) instead. more like interdependently functioning with society As I said it's long known to economists and sociologists. There's even an African proverb pointing at this: It takes a village to raise a child. System researcher investigate those interdependencies since decades. Did you watch the talk? No flash here. I just answer on what you're writing. The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here We talked about the social dimensions some times. It's not the most important topic around here, but that doesn't mean we're all ignorant. In case you haven't noticed I'm not building an AGI, I'm interested in the stuff around, e.g., tests, implementation strategies etc. by the means of social simulation. Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? Which brains? The only real AGI brains are those of living systems A for Artificial. Living systems don't qualify for A. My question was about certain attributes of brains (whether natural or artificial). Societies are constrained by their members' capacities. A higher individual capacity can lead to different dependencies and new ways groups and societies are working. --- 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
[agi] Mathematical models of autonomous life
Researchers from the German Max Planck Society claim to have developed mathematical methods that allow (virtual and robotic) embodied entities to evolve by their own. They begin with a child-like state and develop by exploring both their environment and their personal capabilities. Well, not very new for this list. But it involves virtual dogs... ;) Their press release in German: http://preview.tinyurl.com/62tgom http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/2008/pressemitteilung20081031/index.html The translation via babelfish: http://preview.tinyurl.com/55k53t Note the video gallery: http://robot.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/research/videos/#SECTION20 cu Jan --- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)
Matt, People who haven't studied logic or its notation can certainly learn to do this type of reasoning. Formal logic doesn't scale up very well in humans. That's why this kind of reasoning is so unpopular. Our capacities are that small and we connect to other human entities for a kind of distributed problem solving. Logic is just a tool for us to communicate and reason systematically about problems we would mess up otherwise. So perhaps someone can explain why we need formal knowledge representations to reason in AI. Using formal krep supports us in checking what an AI does when it solves complex problems. So it should be convenient for _us_ and not necessarily for the AI. As I said, it's just a tool. Just my thoughts... cu Jan --- 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] any advice
Dalle Molle Institute of Artificial Intelligence University of Verona (Artificial Intelligence dept) If they were corporations, from which one would you buy shares? I would go for IDSIA. I mean, hey, you have Schmidhuber around. :) Jan --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
