Re: [agi] This is not a good turn for the discussion [WAS Re: Singularity Outcomes ...]
On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: Your comments below are unfounded, and all the worse for being so poisonously phrased. If you read the conversation from the beginning you will discover why: Matt initially suggested the idea that an AGI might be asked to develop a virus of maximum potential, for purposes of testing a security system, and that it might respond by inserting an entire AGI system into the virus, since this would give the virus its maximum potential. The thrust of my reply was that his entire idea of Matt's made no sense, since the AGI could not be a "general" intelligence if it could not see the full implications of the request. Please feel free to accuse me of gross breaches of rhetorical etiquette, but if you do, please make sure first that I really have committed the crimes. ;-) I notice everyone else has (probably wisely) ignored my response anyway. I thought I'd done well at removing the most "poisonously phrased" parts of my email before sending, but I agree I should have waiting a few hours and revisited it before sending, even so. In any case, changes in meaning due to sloppy copying of others' arguments are just SOP for most internet arguments these days. :( To bring this slightly back to AGI: The thrust of my reply was that his entire idea of Matt's made no sense, since the AGI could not be a "general" intelligence if it could not see the full implications of the request. I'm sure you know that most humans fail to see the full implications of *most* things. Is it your opinion, then, that a human is not a general intelligence? -- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "If I can do it in Alabama, then I'm fairly certain you can get away with it anywhere." -- Dresden Codak - 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=8660244&id_secret=90632569-c873ac
Re: Singularity Outcomes [WAS Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide
I pulled in some extra context from earlier messages to illustrate an interesting event, here. On Jan 27, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: --- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: Suppose you ask the AGI to examine some operating system or server software to look for security flaws. Is it supposed to guess whether you want to fix the flaws or write a virus? If it has a moral code (it does) then why on earth would it have to guess whether you want it fix the flaws or fix the virus? If I hired you as a security analyst to find flaws in a piece of software, and I didn't tell you what I was going to do with the information, how would you know? This is so silly it is actually getting quite amusing... :-) So, you are positing a situation in which I am an AGI, and you want to hire me as a security analyst, and you say to me: "Please build the most potent virus in the world (one with a complete AGI inside it), because I need it for security purposes, but I am not going to tell you what I will do with the thing you build." And we are assuming that I am an AGI with at least two neurons to rub together? How would I know what you were going to do with the information? I would say "Sorry, pal, but you must think I was born yesterday. I am not building such a virus for you or anyone else, because the dangers of building it, even as a test, are so enormous that it would be ridiculous. And even if I did think it was a valid request, I wouldn't do such a thing for *anyone* who said 'I cannot tell you what I will do with the thing that you build'!" In the context of the actual quotes, above, the following statement is priceless. It seems to me that you have completely lost track of the original issue in this conversation, so your other comments are meaningless with respect to that original context. Let's look at this again: --- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: Suppose you ask the AGI to examine some operating system or server software to look for security flaws. Is it supposed to guess whether you want to fix the flaws or write a virus? If it has a moral code (it does) then why on earth would it have to guess whether you want it fix the flaws or fix the virus? Notice that in Matt's "Is it supposed to guess whether you want to fix the flaws or write a virus?" there's no suggestion that you're asking the AGI to write a virus, only that you're asking it for security information. Richard then quietly changes "to" to "it", thereby changing the meaning of the sentence to the form he prefers to argue against (however ungrammatical), and then he manages to finish up by accusing *Matt* of forgetting what Matt originally said on the matter. -- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Someone needs to invent a Bayesball bat that exists solely for smacking people [...] upside the head." -- Psy-Kosh on reddit.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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=90357410-2b6273
Re: Singularity Outcomes [WAS Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem with the scenarios that people imagine (many of which are Nightmare Scenarios) is that the vast majority of them involve completely untenable assumptions. One example is the idea that there will be a situation in the world in which there are many superintelligent AGIs in the world, all competing with each other for power in a souped up version of today's arms race (s). This is extraordinarily unlikely: the speed of development would be such that one would have an extremely large time advantage (head start) on the others, and during that time it would merge the others with itself, to ensure that there was no destructive competition. Whichever way you try to think about this situation, the same conclusion seems to emerge. As a counterexample, I offer evolution. There is good evidence that every living thing evolved from a single organism: all DNA is twisted in the same direction. I don't understand how this relates to the above in any way, never mind how it amounts to a counterexample. If you're actually arguing against the possibility of more than one individual superintelligent AGI, then you need to either explain how such an individual could maintain coherence over indefinitely long delays (speed of light) or just say up front that you expect magic physics. If you're arguing that even though individuals will emerge, there will be no evolution, then Matt's counterexample applies directly. -- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle - 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=8660244&id_secret=89499376-fa3d11
Re: [agi] The AGI Test
On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Kevin Peterson wrote: I don't know, though. It might be interesting to reformulate things in terms of interacting with a virtual world over the same channels humans do. Text chatting is just too narrow a channel to tell much. When an AI can reach max level in comparable playing time to a human and lead a guild in a MMORPG, hooked up to the computer running the game client only via a video cable, mouse and keyboard, I'll be very impressed. Leading a guild requires a lot of chat -- so much so, in fact, as to be effectively a Turing test. However, the "level in comparable playing time to a human" is not at all hard, and at least in some systems, doesn't require much intelligence at all. http://www.wowglider.com/ has such a bot, which plays World of Warcraft just as a person does with keyboard and mouse input. This was so effective that Blizzard is suing them now, having been unable to defeat the bot programmatically, since it just plays WoW the same way that a human would. (It might be that wowglider is an elaborate scam and doesn't actually work as advertised, but the fact that the makers of WoW are suing suggests it does work.) -- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Is it asking too much to be given time [...] I'll watch the stars go out." -- Dubstar, Stars - 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/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] SOTA
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Philip Goetz wrote: On 06/01/07, Gary Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is the way it's going to go in my opinion. In a house or office the robots would really be dumb actuators - puppets - being controlled from a central AI which integrates multiple systems together. That way you can keep the cost and maintenance requirements of the robot to a bare minimum. Such a system also future-proofs the robot in a rapidly changing software world, and allows intelligence to be provided as an internet based service. If there's a market for this, then why can't I even buy a thermostat with a timer on it to turn the temperature down at night and up in the morning? The most basic home automation, which could have been built cheaply 30 years ago, is still, if available at all, so rare that I've never seen it. http://www.google.com/search?q=programmable+thermostat They're extremely common; there's an entire aisle of such things at my local Home Depot. -- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "If you are trying to produce a commercial product in a timely and cost efficient way, it is not good to have somebody's PhD research on your critical path." -- Chip Morningstar - 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/?list_id=303
Re: [agi] Heuristics and biases in uncertain inference systems
On Jun 7, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Mike Ross wrote: I think its actually correct to say that (b) is more likely than (a). Humans dont get this "wrong" because they are bad at reasoning. They get this "wrong" because of the ambiguities of natural language. Unlike mathematical language, human speech has many statements which are implied. I think its fair to say that in most conversational contexts, when (b) is stated, it creates an implied second clause to option (a): a. Linda is a bank teller and NOT active in the feminist movement. In this case, it is correct to say that (b) is more likely than (a). When annoyingly logical people insist that this is wrong, they are actually stating that the implied second argument is: a. Linda is a bank teller and EITHER active OR not active in the feminist movement. This may be true on logic tests, but it aint the case in the real world. Just something to keep in mind when talking about human reasoning... When Richard Loosemore made essentially this same argument on SL4, Eliezer said that there were lots of experiments designed to show whether this was the reason for people getting this "wrong", and that they had showed it wasn't. That seems odd to me, too. :) -- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "This is a fascinating question, right up there with whether rocks fall because of gravity or being dropped, and whether 3+5=5+3 because addition is commutative or because they both equal 8." - Scott Aaronson --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
