Re: [agi] Intelligence vs Efficient Intelligence
reply. They'd love to know the best answer. No more need for all these different schools of investors to argue so furiously, no more need for all these schools just of investment AI/ computation alone to keep arguing either.Pei's cracked it, guys. Over here. You really would do well to think very long and hard about that simple problem - it will change your life. I hope you will have the courage to answer the problem. (BTW MOST of the problems humans face in everyday life can be represented as investment problems - it's a basic, not an eccentric problem). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Josh Treadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 480-206-3776 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] The role of incertainty
On 5/1/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I keep saying - I'm not asking for the odd narrowly-defined task - but rather defining CLASSES of specific problems that your/an AGI will be able to tackle. Part of the definition task should be to explain how if you can solve one kind of problem, then you will be able to solve other distinct kinds. Did nature have a specific task in mind when our brains evolved? Much like an AGI, we as humans are capable of doing MANY things. To sum it up, AGI could be described as a machine that is capable of using pattern recognition, classification, and analysis to produce better pattern recognition, classification and analysis systems for itself. The results of this apply to every problem that could ever be asked to solve. The traditional approach to AI is to do exactly what you're asking: solve individual problems and build them up until we have something that, on every observable level, is equivalent to a thinking person. For the last 50 years, this hasn't produced any promising results in terms of cognition. It's interesting - I'm not being in any way critical - that this isn't getting through. -- Josh Treadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 480-206-3776 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] SOTA
Bill, Richard, etc, Children don't have a great grasp of language, but they have all the sensory and contextual mechanisms to learn a language by causal interaction with their environment. Semantics are a learned system, just as words are. In current AI we're programming semantic rules into a huge neural database, and asking it to play an big matching game. These two types of learning may give the same result, but it's not the same process by a long shot. Every time we logically code an algorithm, we're only mimicking the logic function of a learned neural process, which doesn't allow the tiered complexity and concept grasping that sensory learning does. Because language uses discrete semantic rules, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking computers, given enough horsepower, are capable of human thought. Give a computer as many semantic algorithms, metaphor databases, and reaction grading mechanisms as you want, but it takes much deeper and differentiated networks to apply those words and derive a physical meaning beyond grammatical or metaphorical boundaries. This is the difference between a system that resembles intelligence, and an intelligent system. The resembling system is only capable of processing information based on algorithms, and not reworking an algorithm based on the reasoning for executing the function. Whether our AGI is conscious or not, it could still be functionally equivalent to a human mind in terms of output. The recursive bidirectional nature of neurons and their relation to forming a gestalt is something we're barely able to grasp as a concept, let alone code for. The nature of our hardware is going to have to change to accommodate these multidimensional and recursive problems in computing. Josh Treadwell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] direct:480.206.3776 C.R.I.S. Camera Services 250 North 54th Street Chandler, AZ 85226 USA p 480.940.1103 / f 480.940.1329 http://www.criscam.com BillK wrote: On 10/20/06, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For you to blithely say "Most normal speaking requires relatively little 'intelligence'" is just mind-boggling. I am not trying to say that language skills don't require a human level of intelligence. That's obvious. That is what make humans human. But day-to-day chat can be mastered by children, even in a foreign language. Watch that video I referenced in my previous post, of an American chatting to a Chinese woman via a laptop running MASTOR software. http://www.research.ibm.com/jam/speech_to_speech.mpg Now tell me that that laptop is showing great intelligence to translate at the basic level of normal conversation. Simple subject object predicate stuff. Basic everyday vocabulary. No complex similes, metaphors, etc. There is a big difference between discussing philosophy and saying "Where is the toilet?" That is what I was trying to point out. Billk - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [agi] SOTA
Philip Goetz wrote: On 10/20/06, Josh Treadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The resembling system is only capable of processing information based on algorithms, and not reworking an algorithm based on the reasoning for executing the function. This appears to be the same argument Spock made in an old Star Trek episode, that the computer chess-player could never beat the person who programmed it. Note to the world: It is wrong. Please stop using this argument. It's not the same. A chess program is merely comparing outcomes and percentages, while adapting algorithmically to play styles. It's a discrete system within which logically written functions are executed. Yes, it adapts to moves and keeps a track of which moves are going on, but there is no higher order AI that is thinking "out of the box" about the problem. It simply approaches, computes based on a database of moves, and weighs it's advantages and disadvantages. A chess program never reworks it's strategy based on it's own reasoning of why it's playing. It just does, and does well. Yes it could beat us, but it's akin to saying a calculator is faster at math than we are. Josh Treadwell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] direct:480.206.3776 C.R.I.S. Camera Services 250 North 54th Street Chandler, AZ 85226 USA p 480.940.1103 / f 480.940.1329 http://www.criscam.com This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: A Mind Ontology Project? [Re: [agi] method for joining efforts]
The second project that hasnt started yet is the Loglish language parser project. The goal of this project would be to build a richly featured parser library for Loglish, a composite-language of Lojban and English designed by Dr. Goertzel. (More information on Loglish here: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=125) This project requires a lot of specific domain knowledge: parser generators, computational linguistics, formal logic, etc. Is this referring to Ben's "lojban++" or "loglish"? I wasn't sure if there was a difference. It seems lojban++ is an update to his loglish proposition: http://www.goertzel.org/papers/lojbanplusplus.pdf -- Josh Treadwell This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ---BeginMessage--- Hi all, I have spent some time recently mulling over the details of a partially-new language for communicating between humans and AI's. The language is (tentatively) called Lojban++ and is described here: http://www.goertzel.org/papers/lojbanplusplus.pdf Of course, I don't think that a language like this solves the fundamental problems of AGI design/dynamics/teaching. By no means. However, I think it can be a valuable tool, in terms of making the teaching process easier and smoother. Humans come with a lot of inbuilt inductive bias that helps us learn natural languages. AGI's don't have this particular inductive bias, unless one explicitly builds it in, which is very hard. Thus it makes sense, for AGI teaching purposes, to use a language that can be mastered without any particular inductive bias, because it's closer to the thought level without so much arbitrariness. Lojban++, a pidgin combining some English vocabulary with the already existing logic-based language Lojban, seems to me to fit the bill... Building a Lojban++ parser and semantic-mapper will require a fair bit of work, and if anyone on this list is interested in taking on this project (on an open-source basis, most likely) I'd be eager to talk about it... -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ---End Message---
Re: [agi] Is a robot a Turing Machine?
Sergio, I think brains are classical devices as well, although I also believe there to be a difference between simple classical systems and systems exhibiting a complexity threshold. When you introduce enough autonomous agents into a system, the emergent behavior generates a new threshold. And this process is recursive, so that once a threshold is met, another new system is coined. There are no definite threshold levels but rather vague analog tipping points depending on the characteristics of the input system. Thus, nth level systems (cognition - biological learning algorithms - neurons - molecules - atoms - sub-atomic systems - universal constant limits, etc) are exchanging evolutionary information with each other, and cross-influencing each others behavior. This brings us to orders of magnitude and the hierarchal perspective. Successful evolutionary growth tends to have higher level systems (person) that see its lower systems (cells) as expendable, but higher forms (society) as worth more than itself. From a certain vantage point on this hierarchy, a low enough system is replaceable by a process that is able to predict an outcome or output up to an unimportant round (ie analog vs. digital). My dilemma occurs when consciousness comes into the picture. There may be a certain point where existing, in the way we understand it, parallels some universal constant or planck time persistence. This trait may not follow into our AGI systems. We might be taking the same evolutionary road as our AI, but they lack the quantum parallel necessary to be conscious. Perhaps systemic cognition and true consciousness are separable? A cognitive understanding of systems might itself be a higher, yet unnecessary step up from conscious cognition. So the question would become, are cognitive systems or consciousness more important to reproduce first? Sorry about the bad english/vagueness. Lunch came and went a little too fast today for any editing. -Josh -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
