Re: [agi] AGI and Web 2.0
if you take the module route, some interesting qualities can be -modules being run / developed / trained /debugged partly independent from the system -a way to run them in sandboxes so they cant delete your hard drive -a way to control the amount of runtime they get (or priority, or a scheme of activation) this could be controlled or influenced by a collection of modules in charge of running things... -ways to load/unload modules from the system depending on what task you are doing --- Neil Halelamien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a tangential note, it might be interesting to have a modular AGI architecture where particular modules could be entirely or partially controlled by individual humans, or perhaps groups of humans playing webgames or some-such. For example, a perceptual subsystem could route ambiguous cases for human identification, and then learn based on the human response. Of course, ideally as development progressed the human-controlled modules would be replaced bit-by-bit by code. One might even argue that any component of an AGI should be able to be run on a human or group of humans, although performance might be arbitrarily slow. On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does the new phenomenon of web-based collaboration change the way we build an AGI? I feel that something is amiss in a business model if we don't make use of some form of Web 2.0 . I think rooftop8000 is on the right track by thinking this way, but he may not have it figured out yet. Obviously, commonsense knowledge (ie KB contents) can be acquired from the internet community. But what about the core? Can we build it using web-collaboration too? One of my strong conviction is that opensource should be combined with commercial. That will result in the most productive and satisfying organization, IMO. Suppose we opensource an AGI codebase, so people can contribute by adding to / modifying it. Then we should have a way to measure the contribution's value and reward the contributor accordingly. What we need is: 1. a way to decide which contributions to accept (by voting?) 2. a way to measure the *value* of each contribution (perhaps voting as well) A problem is that we cannot take universal ballots every time on every trivial issue. So probably we need a special adminstrative committee for decision-making. This idea is worth trying because it may cut down on development costs. YKY 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 - 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 Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - 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
[agi] AGI and Web 2.0
How does the new phenomenon of web-based collaboration change the way we build an AGI? I feel that something is amiss in a business model if we don't make use of some form of Web 2.0. I think rooftop8000 is on the right track by thinking this way, but he may not have it figured out yet. Obviously, commonsense knowledge (ie KB contents) can be acquired from the internet community. But what about the core? Can we build it using web-collaboration too? One of my strong conviction is that opensource should be combined with commercial. That will result in the most productive and satisfying organization, IMO. Suppose we opensource an AGI codebase, so people can contribute by adding to / modifying it. Then we should have a way to measure the contribution's value and reward the contributor accordingly. What we need is: 1. a way to decide which contributions to accept (by voting?) 2. a way to measure the *value* of each contribution (perhaps voting as well) A problem is that we cannot take universal ballots every time on every trivial issue. So probably we need a special adminstrative committee for decision-making. This idea is worth trying because it may cut down on development costs. YKY - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, commonsense knowledge (ie KB contents) can be acquired from the internet community. But what about the core? Can we build it using web-collaboration too? I think the framework at least initially needs to be written by a small team of dedicated people. Open sourcing it later would be an option, but I think it needs to get to a working version before it'll start being possible for outside/casual contributions to be useful. (From what I remember off the top of my head, most successful open source projects have followed a similar model: an individual or small team produces the first working version, and after that other people get involved.) - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
Yes that's usually the way it works. Initially you need one person or a small team to produce something which is at least good enough to be run and tested by others. Improvements can be made from there on. On 29/03/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, commonsense knowledge (ie KB contents) can be acquired from the internet community. But what about the core? Can we build it using web-collaboration too? I think the framework at least initially needs to be written by a small team of dedicated people. Open sourcing it later would be an option, but I think it needs to get to a working version before it'll start being possible for outside/casual contributions to be useful. (From what I remember off the top of my head, most successful open source projects have followed a similar model: an individual or small team produces the first working version, and after that other people get involved.) -- 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 - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I've heard the same thing, but I'm wondering if we can do better than that by going open sooner. You know, very often the biggest mistakes are made at the very beginning. If we can solicit the collective intelligence of a wider group perhaps the basic design will be better. I think there's at least one good practical reason to avoid doing that, or at least to do it at arm's length in a potential users discussing potential features mailing list rather than here's our code as we write it. In the early stages of something as bleeding-edge as this, it's normal to need several rounds of scrapping and redoing major chunks of design; if you don't/can't do that, if you have to go with whatever your first guess was, it's easy to end up hamstrung later because the design doesn't really handle the requirements and it's too late to rewrite from scratch. It's psychologically a lot easier to do that sort of scrap-and-redo if the world isn't looking over your shoulder. One thing we can try is to build an extremely primitive prototype so it can be out as soon as possible. That I agree with, aim to get something that works but doesn't yet have all the bells and whistles, so it can be released soon. - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
On 29/03/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think there's at least one good practical reason to avoid doing that, or at least to do it at arm's length in a potential users discussing potential features mailing list rather than here's our code as we write it. In the early stages of something as bleeding-edge as this, it's normal to need several rounds of scrapping and redoing major chunks of design; if you don't/can't do that, if you have to go with whatever your first guess was, it's easy to end up hamstrung later because the design doesn't really handle the requirements and it's too late to rewrite from scratch. It's psychologically a lot easier to do that sort of scrap-and-redo if the world isn't looking over your shoulder. The process of invention inevitably involves scrapping designs when they reach a point where it's obvious that they're not going to work. This is especially a problem for AI systems, where even the theoretical basis underlying the project is subject to uncertainty, whereas if you're just writing a web browser all the theory of basically what it should do is completely known from the outset. I've lost count of the number of times which I've scrapped and re-written some of my own projects, but by now I think I've made most of the mistakes which its possible to make, and as they say when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
On 3/29/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've lost count of the number of times which I've scrapped and re-written some of my own projects, but by now I think I've made most of the mistakes which its possible to make, and as they say when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Yep, that's about where I'm at too ^.^ - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
On 3/30/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think there's at least one good practical reason to avoid doing that, or at least to do it at arm's length in a potential users discussing potential features mailing list rather than here's our code as we write it. In the early stages of something as bleeding-edge as this, it's normal to need several rounds of scrapping and redoing major chunks of design; if you don't/can't do that, if you have to go with whatever your first guess was, it's easy to end up hamstrung later because the design doesn't really handle the requirements and it's too late to rewrite from scratch. It's psychologically a lot easier to do that sort of scrap-and-redo if the world isn't looking over your shoulder. OK, that's reasonable ;) YKY - 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] AGI and Web 2.0
On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does the new phenomenon of web-based collaboration change the way we build an AGI? I feel that something is amiss in a business model if we don't make use of some form of Web 2.0 . A problem is that we cannot take universal ballots every time on every trivial issue. So probably we need a special adminstrative committee for decision-making. I think the primitive prototype should be about inter-node communication methodology. A basic API for Tell me what you know about X, Y, Z would allow nodes utilizing different storage or processing methods to interact with each other. ex: I ask for information about some process flow and I get back a chart. I am not particularly good at consuming a chart, so I store this content as possibly relevant but currently less than ideally consumable. Eventually I may develop a way to get the meaning out of that media format. Meanwhile if someone asks ME for that same process flow, I can communicate in my more 'native' expression of words/paragraphs/etc. and simply pass along the chart. That consumer might prefer the chart. Assuming I pass along the chart with proper source identification, I have communicated not only my knowledge of the subject, but a potential forward reference for further query. (conceivably the source of that chart might have gained new information on the subject while I was storing it) whether nodes represent people in a social network or neurons in a brain, I believe the interconnect protocol is what makes the whole greater than the mere sum of the parts. - 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
