Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Steve, You raise huge issues. I broadly agree with the direction you're going with your multilevelled approach to physically implementing verbal commands. However, I'm quite sure there is still more than you think - including a whole level of image schemas - useful here to think of the analogy of geometry as a whole supportive level of science's upper level of words and other symbols. I seriously recommend, in fact insist that you have got to get into Lakoff-Johnson, and Rizzolatti-Gallese-Iacoboni the mirror neurons crowd. These guys are working together doing some of the hottest research at the mo. Try Chap 8 of Mark Johnson, The Meaning of the Body - and more. Basically, experiments show the brain does start to instantiate and process physical verbal commands and ideas on a pre-motor level all the time - and indeed has to, if you think about it. If someone says come with me to the supermarket, your brain has to process that on a motor level for you to immediately reply: I can't, I've got a weak ankle. Actually, come to think of it, verbal porn is probably a truly great area to explore in terms of multilevelled, and v. physical processing here! I haven't really thought about physical/robotic instantiation of commands much, except that the starting point will normally be that the body and its limbs typically offer something like a 180-360 degree spectrum of freedom of movement on any given plane, and then I guess, as you indicate, the brain-body will plump first for the easiest most direct line of physical approach to a target, and then adjust accordingly to obstacles. Clearly it will have certain movement sets/skills - so even if you are trying to dance around, say, freely, improvisationally, you tend to fall into certain familiar kinds of moves and find it difficult to branch out in new directions. - As soon as one starts to think about these areas, it seems to me, the need for what I would call a loose geoiconography (as opposed to precise geometry/ geography) of thought - i.e. a system of mental image schemas - becomes apparent. - Original Message - From: Stephen Reed To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity - Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:30:12 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity Steve, Some odd thoughts in reply. Thanks BTW for article. 1. You don't seem to get what's implicit in the main point - you can't reliably work out the sense of an enormous number of words by any kind of word lookup whatsoever. How do you actually work out how to handle the object - the slimy, slippery twisted ropey thing-y, or whatever? By looking at it. By looking at images of it - either directly or by entertaining them mentally - not consulting any kind of dictionary or word definitions at all. By imagining what parts of the object to grip, and how to configure your hands to grip it. Steve: Sorry that I missed that. But your clarifying issue is quite interesting. Let me try to tease appart your scenario and explain how the envisioned Texai system would process the command handle the object. I assume that you agree that an AGI designed to our mutual satisfaction should in principle be able to process that particular command with at least the same competence as a human. So the issue for me is to explain in brief how Texai might do it. First I assume that Texai has a body of commsense knowledge about, and skills applicable to, the kinds of objects that can be handled. If not, then there is a knowledge acquisition phase, and skill acquistion phase, that must be completed beforehand. Second, I assume that the linquistic concepts are expressed internally by the system as symbolic terms. Many terms, for example objects that can be handled, are grounded to the real world by an abstraction hierarchy. Descending down this hierarchy, objects are represented less and less as symbols in logical statements, and more and more as clustered feature vectors, and perhaps, at the lowest levels, as no internal state at all - just sensors and actuators in contact with the real world. Thirdly, I distinguish between the understanding the command handle the object and generating the behavior required to perform the command. I think that you are conflating these two notions to make the scenario more difficult that it otherwise would be. Perhaps as you know, Texai is a hierarchical control system. I expect that skills will be present to handle various kinds of objects, so for me the issue is to determine the correct skill to invoke in order to perform the given command. As I explained in my previous post, Fluid Construction Grammar does not determine semantics by word lookup, rather it looks up constructions, which might be words
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Mike,
I have Lakoff Johnson Metaphors We Live By. And I'll order the other
titles you recommend.
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Artificial Intelligence Researcher
http://texai.org/blog
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:07:26 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
Steve,
You raise huge issues. I broadly agree with the
direction you're going with your multilevelled approach to physically
implementing verbal commands. However, I'm quite sure there is still more than
you think - including a whole level of image schemas - useful here to think of
the analogy of geometry as a whole supportive level of science's upper level of
words and other symbols.
I seriously recommend, in fact insist that you have
got to get into Lakoff-Johnson, and Rizzolatti-Gallese-Iacoboni the
mirror neurons crowd. These guys are working together doing some of the
hottest research at the mo. Try Chap 8 of Mark Johnson, The Meaning of the Body
- and more. Basically, experiments show the brain does start to instantiate and
process physical verbal commands and ideas on a pre-motor level all the
time - and indeed has to, if you think about it. If someone says come
with me to the supermarket, your brain has to process that on a motor level
for
you to immediately reply: I can't, I've got a weak
ankle.
Actually, come to think of it, verbal porn is
probably a truly great area to explore in terms of multilevelled, and v.
physical processing here!
I haven't really thought about physical/robotic
instantiation of commands much, except that the starting point will normally be
that the body and its limbs typically offer something like a 180-360 degree
spectrum of freedom of movement on any given plane, and then I guess, as you
indicate, the brain-body will plump first for the easiest most direct line of
physical approach to a target, and then adjust accordingly to obstacles.
Clearly
it will have certain movement sets/skills - so even if you are trying to dance
around, say, freely, improvisationally, you tend to fall into certain familiar
kinds of moves and find it difficult to branch out in new directions. - As
soon as one starts to think about these areas, it seems to me, the need for
what
I would call a loose geoiconography (as opposed to precise geometry/
geography) of thought - i.e. a system of mental image schemas - becomes
apparent.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Charles: I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out of narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add-on. Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably narrow AI (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition, e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001 of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. John: I agree that it may be 1%. Oh boy, does this strike me as absurd. Don't have time for the theory right now, but just had to vent. Percentage estimates strike me as a bit silly, but if you want to aim for one, why not look at both your paragraphs, word by word. Don't think might relatively etc. Now which of those words can only be applied to a single type of activity, rather than an open-ended set of activities? Which cannot be instantiated in an open-ended if not infinite set of ways? Which is not a very valuable if not key tool of a General Intelligence, that can adapt to solve problems across domains? Language IOW is the central (but not essential) instrument of human general intelligence - and I can't think offhand of a single world that is not a tool for generalising across domains, including Charles H. and John G.. In fact, every tool you guys use - logic, maths etc. - is similarly general and functions in similar ways. The above strikes me as a 99% failure to understand the nature of general intelligence. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles: I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out of narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add- on. Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably narrow AI (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition, e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001 of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. John: I agree that it may be 1%. Oh boy, does this strike me as absurd. Don't have time for the theory right now, but just had to vent. Percentage estimates strike me as a bit silly, but if you want to aim for one, why not look at both your paragraphs, word by word. Don't think might relatively etc. Now which of those words can only be applied to a single type of activity, rather than an open- ended set of activities? Which cannot be instantiated in an open-ended if not infinite set of ways? Which is not a very valuable if not key tool of a General Intelligence, that can adapt to solve problems across domains? Language IOW is the central (but not essential) instrument of human general intelligence - and I can't think offhand of a single world that is not a tool for generalising across domains, including Charles H. and John G.. In fact, every tool you guys use - logic, maths etc. - is similarly general and functions in similar ways. The above strikes me as a 99% failure to understand the nature of general intelligence. Mike you are 100% potentially right with a margin of error of 110%. LOL! Seriously Mike how do YOU indicate approximations? And how are you differentiating general and specific? And declaring relative absolutes and convenient infinitudes... I'm trying to understand your argument. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
John, I'm developing this argument more fully elsewhere, so I'll just give a partial gist. What I'm saying - and I stand to be corrected - is that I suspect that literally no one in AI and AGI (and perhaps philosophy) present or past understands the nature of the tools they are using. All the tools - all the sign systems currently used - especially language - are actually general-purpose - AS USED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN. The whole point of just about every word in language is that it constitutes a general, open brief which can be instantiated in any one of an infinite set of ways. So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your normal ways of handling boxes are blocked, you are ready to seek out or improvise some strange new contorted two-finger hand position to pick up the box - which also count as handling. (And you will have actually done a lot of this). So what is the meaning of handle? Well, to be precise, it doesn't have a/one meaning, and isn't meant to - it has a range of possible meanings/references, and you can choose which is most convenient in the circumstances. The same principles apply to just about every word in language and every unit of logic and mathematics. But - and correct me - I don't think anyone in AI/AGI is using language or any logico-mathematical systems in this general, open-ended way - the way they are actually meant to be used - and the very foundation of General Intelligence. Language and the other systems are always used by AGI in specific ways to have specific meanings. YKY, typically, wanted a language for his system which had precise meanings. Even Ben, I suspect, may only employ words in an open way, in that their meanings can be changed with experience - but at any given point their meanings will have to be specific. To be capable of generalising as the human brain does - and of true AGI - you have to have a brain that simultaneously processes on at least two if not three levels, with two/three different sign systems - including both general and particular ones. John: Charles: I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out of narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add- on. Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably narrow AI (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition, e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001 of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. John: I agree that it may be 1%. Oh boy, does this strike me as absurd. Don't have time for the theory right now, but just had to vent. Percentage estimates strike me as a bit silly, but if you want to aim for one, why not look at both your paragraphs, word by word. Don't think might relatively etc. Now which of those words can only be applied to a single type of activity, rather than an open- ended set of activities? Which cannot be instantiated in an open-ended if not infinite set of ways? Which is not a very valuable if not key tool of a General Intelligence, that can adapt to solve problems across domains? Language IOW is the central (but not essential) instrument of human general intelligence - and I can't think offhand of a single world that is not a tool for generalising across domains, including Charles H. and John G.. In fact, every tool you guys use - logic, maths etc. - is similarly general and functions in similar ways. The above strikes me as a 99% failure to understand the nature of general intelligence. Mike you are 100% potentially right with a margin of error of 110%. LOL! Seriously Mike how do YOU indicate approximations? And how are you differentiating general and specific? And declaring relative absolutes and convenient infinitudes... I'm trying to understand your argument. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your normal ways of handling boxes are blocked, you are ready to seek out or improvise some strange new contorted two-finger hand position to pick up the box - which also count as handling. (And you will have actually done a lot of this). So what is the meaning of handle? Well, to be precise, it doesn't have a/one meaning, and isn't meant to - it has a range of possible meanings/references, and you can choose which is most convenient in the circumstances. Actually I'd make a stronger statement than that. It's not just that we can CHOOSE the meanings of concepts from a fixed menu of possibilities ... we CREATE the meanings of concepts as we use them ... this is how and why concept-meanings continually change over time in individual minds and in cultures... This is parallel to how we create episodic memories as we re-live them, rather than retrieving them as if from a database... These creation processes do however seem to be realizable in digital computer systems, based on my theoretical understanding ... though none of us have done it yet, it's certainly loads of work given current software tools... Ben --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Ben:It's not just that we can CHOOSE the meanings of concepts from a fixed menu of possibilities ... we CREATE the meanings of concepts as we use them ... this is how and why concept-meanings continually change over time in individual minds and in cultures... Yes. Good point. Generality/open-endedness of sign systems and creativity are intertwined - Creativity here being used in the most general sense to cover everything from the everyday kind, such as improvising new bag-carrying hand positions, to the Edisonian kind. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Mike, An interesting paper on the meanings of words is I don't believe in word senses by Adam Kilgarriff. He concludes: Following a description of the conflict between WSD [Word Sense Disambiguation] and lexicological research, I examined the concept, ‘word sense’. It was not found to be sufficiently well defined to be a workable basic unit of meaning. I then presented an account of word meaning in which ‘word sense’ or ‘lexical unit’ is not a basic unit. Rather, the basic units are occurrences of the word in context (operationalised as corpus citations). In the simplest case, corpus citations fall into one or more distinct clusters and each of these clusters, if large enough and distinct enough from other clusters, forms a distinct word sense. But many or most cases are not simple, and even for an apparently straightforward common noun with physical objects as denotation, handbag, there are a significant number of aberrant citations. The interactions between a word’s uses and its senses were explored in some detail. The analysis also charted the potential for lexical creativity. The implication for WSD is that word senses are only ever defined relative to a set of interests. The set of senses defined by a dictionary may or may not match the set that is relevant for an NLP [Natural Language Processing] application. The scientific study of language should not include word senses as objects in its ontology. Where ‘word senses’ have a role to play in a scientific vocabulary, they are to be construed as abstractions over clusters of word usages. Accordingly, I am attracted to Fluid Construction Grammar in my own work because the minimal constituent in that grammar is the construction, which in some cases can be a word, but often is not. You gave as an example: So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. The utterance Texai, handle removing a chair from the house would, in my system, be processed as an imperative construction, parsing out these discourse referring objects: Texai - the software agent commanded to perform the handling actionhandling action - specifically, the action in which responsibility for accomplishing the removing action is accepted removing action - the type of removing intended by the author of the command house - the location of the actionchair - the item to be removedimperative situation - the enclosing utterance situation in which these other objects are related The Texai system, as envisioned by me to operate, would recognize this command as a parametrized task, then either (1) find an existing skill module capable of performing the task, or (2) composing a sequence of more primitive skills whose combination is capable of performing the task. As you point out, the task may be performed directly by the agent, or indirectly by managing the effort of some other agent. The author of the command does not care which alternative is chosen by the commanded agent - hence the use of the word handle in this construction. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:04:08 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity John, I'm developing this argument more fully elsewhere, so I'll just give a partial gist. What I'm saying - and I stand to be corrected - is that I suspect that literally no one in AI and AGI (and perhaps philosophy) present or past understands the nature of the tools they are using. All the tools - all the sign systems currently used - especially language - are actually general-purpose - AS USED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN. The whole point of just about every word in language is that it constitutes a general, open brief which can be instantiated in any one of an infinite set of ways. So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your normal ways of handling boxes are blocked, you are ready to seek out or improvise some strange new contorted two-finger hand position to pick up the box - which also count as handling. (And you will have actually done a lot of this). So what is the meaning of handle? Well, to be precise
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
: a.. Texai - the software agent commanded to perform the handling action b.. handling action - specifically, the action in which responsibility for accomplishing the removing action is accepted c.. removing action - the type of removing intended by the author of the command d.. house - the location of the action e.. chair - the item to be removed f.. imperative situation - the enclosing utterance situation in which these other objects are related The Texai system, as envisioned by me to operate, would recognize this command as a parametrized task, then either (1) find an existing skill module capable of performing the task, or (2) composing a sequence of more primitive skills whose combination is capable of performing the task. As you point out, the task may be performed directly by the agent, or indirectly by managing the effort of some other agent. The author of the command does not care which alternative is chosen by the commanded agent - hence the use of the word handle in this construction. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:04:08 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity John, I'm developing this argument more fully elsewhere, so I'll just give a partial gist. What I'm saying - and I stand to be corrected - is that I suspect that literally no one in AI and AGI (and perhaps philosophy) present or past understands the nature of the tools they are using. All the tools - all the sign systems currently used - especially language - are actually general-purpose - AS USED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN. The whole point of just about every word in language is that it constitutes a general, open brief which can be instantiated in any one of an infinite set of ways. So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your normal ways of handling boxes are blocked, you are ready to seek out or improvise some strange new contorted two-finger hand position to pick up the box - which also count as handling. (And you will have actually done a lot of this). So what is the meaning of handle? Well, to be precise, it doesn't have a/one meaning, and isn't meant to - it has a range of possible meanings/references, and you can choose which is most convenient in the circumstances. The same principles apply to just about every word in language and every unit of logic and mathematics. But - and correct me - I don't think anyone in AI/AGI is using language or any logico-mathematical systems in this general, open-ended way - the way they are actually meant to be used - and the very foundation of General Intelligence. Language and the other systems are always used by AGI in specific ways to have specific meanings. YKY, typically, wanted a language for his system which had precise meanings. Even Ben, I suspect, may only employ words in an open way, in that their meanings can be changed with experience - but at any given point their meanings will have to be specific. To be capable of generalising as the human brain does - and of true AGI - you have to have a brain that simultaneously processes on at least two if not three levels, with two/three different sign systems - including both general and particular ones. John: Charles: I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out of narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add- on. Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably narrow AI (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition, e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001 of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. John: I agree that it may be 1%. Oh boy, does this strike me as absurd. Don't have time for the theory right now, but just had to vent. Percentage estimates strike me as a bit silly, but if you want to aim for one, why not look at both your paragraphs, word by word. Don't think might
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
It's true, a word sense is not a crisp thing like a part-of-speech ... it's more of a cluster among usage-instances... Yet, this kind of fuzzy, cluster-type category does play an important role in cognition, no? ben g 2008/3/27 Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mike, An interesting paper on the meanings of words is I don't believe in word senses by Adam Kilgarriff. He concludes: Following a description of the conflict between WSD [Word Sense Disambiguation] and lexicological research, I examined the concept, 'word sense'. It was not found to be sufficiently well defined to be a workable basic unit of meaning. I then presented an account of word meaning in which 'word sense' or 'lexical unit' is not a basic unit. Rather, the basic units are occurrences of the word in context (operationalised as corpus citations). In the simplest case, corpus citations fall into one or more distinct clusters and each of these clusters, if large enough and distinct enough from other clusters, forms a distinct word sense. But many or most cases are not simple, and even for an apparently straightforward common noun with physical objects as denotation, handbag, there are a significant number of aberrant citations. The interactions between a word's uses and its senses were explored in some detail. The analysis also charted the potential for lexical creativity. The implication for WSD is that word senses are only ever defined relative to a set of interests. The set of senses defined by a dictionary may or may not match the set that is relevant for an NLP [Natural Language Processing] application. The scientific study of language should not include word senses as objects in its ontology. Where 'word senses' have a role to play in a scientific vocabulary, they are to be construed as abstractions over clusters of word usages. Accordingly, I am attracted to Fluid Construction Grammar in my own work because the minimal constituent in that grammar is the construction, which in some cases can be a word, but often is not. You gave as an example: So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. The utterance Texai, handle removing a chair from the house would, in my system, be processed as an imperative construction, parsing out these discourse referring objects: Texai - the software agent commanded to perform the handling action handling action - specifically, the action in which responsibility for accomplishing the removing action is accepted removing action - the type of removing intended by the author of the command house - the location of the action chair - the item to be removed imperative situation - the enclosing utterance situation in which these other objects are related The Texai system, as envisioned by me to operate, would recognize this command as a parametrized task, then either (1) find an existing skill module capable of performing the task, or (2) composing a sequence of more primitive skills whose combination is capable of performing the task. As you point out, the task may be performed directly by the agent, or indirectly by managing the effort of some other agent. The author of the command does not care which alternative is chosen by the commanded agent - hence the use of the word handle in this construction. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:04:08 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity John, I'm developing this argument more fully elsewhere, so I'll just give a partial gist. What I'm saying - and I stand to be corrected - is that I suspect that literally no one in AI and AGI (and perhaps philosophy) present or past understands the nature of the tools they are using. All the tools - all the sign systems currently used - especially language - are actually general-purpose - AS USED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN. The whole point of just about every word in language is that it constitutes a general, open brief which can be instantiated in any one of an infinite set of ways. So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
[Warning: A random blurb on the word theme]. Words and similar things are marvelous high-level training tools. They provide a uniform interface that allows to access high-level concepts through low-level standard input. They allow to perform supervised training without special 'label signals'. For action learning, word can be associated with a certain kind of actions, and then this word can be used to evoke this kind of action in novel situations, forcing this class of actions on those situations. Words are simple high-level handles that can be used to move around and direct complex processes associated with them. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
On 27/03/2008, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. While philosophically, intellectually, most people dealing with this area may expect words to have precise meanings, they know practically and intuitively that this is impossible and work on the basis that words can have different meanings according to who uses them - and that they themselves keep shifting their usage of words. Philosophers, for example may argue philosophically that words can and should have precise meanings and be treated as true or false, but know in practice that pretty well all the major words/concepts in philosophy, like mind/consciousness/determinism - have multiple, indeed endless definitions. Or just think about AGI'ers and intelligence. It seems to me that the linguistics are just a secondary phenomena intended to express and riding on top of a deeper underlying dynamic consisting of prelinguistic concepts, motor acts, imagery and so on. There may be a many to one mapping between the linguistic expression and the underlying models, hence the belief that individuals may talk with precise meanings. In a sense the meanings may be precise when translated into the underlying models, but the process of interpretation may have multiple paths and be quite ambiguous. Trying to understand language completely in isolation as a kind of statistical word game is probably going to fail in my view. Language itself is just a tool or mode of expression for things which may be intimately bound up with our embodiment and the way we perceive and act in the world. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Ben, I would agree with an even stronger version of your statement: Treating word senses as fuzzy, cluster type categories in the context of usage-instances is the only cognitively plausible method for AGI to comprehend and produce them. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:37:40 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity It's true, a word sense is not a crisp thing like a part-of-speech ... it's more of a cluster among usage-instances... Yet, this kind of fuzzy, cluster-type category does play an important role in cognition, no? ben g Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:30:12 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
Steve,
Some odd thoughts in reply. Thanks BTW for
article.
1. You don't seem to get what's implicit in the main point - you can't reliably
work out the sense of an enormous number of words by any kind of word lookup
whatsoever. How do you actually work out how to handle the object - the
slimy, slippery twisted ropey thing-y, or whatever? By looking at it. By
looking at images of it - either directly or by entertaining them mentally -
not consulting any kind of dictionary or word definitions at all. By imagining
what parts of the object to grip, and how to configure your hands to grip it.
Steve: Sorry that I missed that. But your clarifying issue is quite
interesting. Let me try to tease appart your scenario and explain how the
envisioned Texai system would process the command handle the object. I
assume that you agree that an AGI designed to our mutual satisfaction should in
principle be able to process that particular command with at least the same
competence as a human. So the issue for me is to explain in brief how Texai
might do it.
First I assume that Texai has a body of commsense knowledge about, and skills
applicable to, the kinds of objects that can be handled. If not, then there
is a knowledge acquisition phase, and skill acquistion phase, that must be
completed beforehand.
Second, I assume that the linquistic concepts are expressed internally by the
system as symbolic terms. Many terms, for example objects that can be handled,
are grounded to the real world by an abstraction hierarchy. Descending down
this hierarchy, objects are represented less and less as symbols in logical
statements, and more and more as clustered feature vectors, and perhaps, at the
lowest levels, as no internal state at all - just sensors and actuators in
contact with the real world.
Thirdly, I distinguish between the understanding the command handle the
object and generating the behavior required to perform the command. I think
that you are conflating these two notions to make the scenario more difficult
that it otherwise would be. Perhaps as you know, Texai is a hierarchical
control system. I expect that skills will be present to handle various kinds
of objects, so for me the issue is to determine the correct skill to invoke in
order to perform the given command. As I explained in my previous post, Fluid
Construction Grammar does not determine semantics by word lookup, rather it
looks up constructions, which might be words, but often are not.
Given these assumptions of mine, your scenario suggests that the object to be
handled is one for which the system has no previous skill, or for which the
existing skill cannot be recognized as applicable to the given object. Because
I now building a bootstrap dialog system, that is motivated entirely by the
need to process novel situations, I am tempted to say that the system should
simply ask the user to teach it how to handle the novel object, or to ask if an
existing skill can be applied to the given object. However, lets move beyond
this approach, and I'll explain how the system uses existing perception and
planning skills to handle the given object.
By way of simplification, I'll assume your intent when asking the system to
handle the object means to pick it up with some physical actuator. And I'll
preface my explanation of this step by stating without proof that this task is
analogous to those already solved by state-of-the-art, urban, driverless cars,
e.g. drive yourself to location X, where the driverless car has never been to
X. Rather than a futile attempt to explain all cases that come to mind, I'll
discuss a couple to give a flavor my approach.
Case 1 The system can sense that the novel object is not dangerous and cannot
be easily destroyed by its actuators. Then I propose that the first strategy
tried should be to pick it up in the most direct fashion, and compensate in
subsequent attempts for failure modes that resulted from from the earlier
attempts. This is like the pole balancing task that can be accomplished by
connectionist methods and no symbolic planning.
Case 2 The system senses that the actions to pick up the object are not subject
to experimentation, but must be performed correctly on the first attempt. For
this task, the system must observe all the object state that it can to remove
uncertainty. It must create a symbolic model of the object and its dynamics at
the right level of abstraction, and perform planning using symbolic
representions of its possible actions in order to create a trajectory that
satisfies the command to handle the object. Then it must execute the plan,
repairing the plan as needed as problem state evolves that was not planned in
advance
RE: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm developing this argument more fully elsewhere, so I'll just give a partial gist. What I'm saying - and I stand to be corrected - is that I suspect that literally no one in AI and AGI (and perhaps philosophy) present or past understands the nature of the tools they are using. All the tools - all the sign systems currently used - especially language - are actually general-purpose - AS USED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN. The whole point of just about every word in language is that it constitutes a general, open brief which can be instantiated in any one of an infinite set of ways. So if I tell you to handle an object, or a piece of business, like say removing a chair from the house - that word handle is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your normal ways of handling boxes are blocked, you are ready to seek out or improvise some strange new contorted two-finger hand position to pick up the box - which also count as handling. (And you will have actually done a lot of this). So what is the meaning of handle? Well, to be precise, it doesn't have a/one meaning, and isn't meant to - it has a range of possible meanings/references, and you can choose which is most convenient in the circumstances. The same principles apply to just about every word in language and every unit of logic and mathematics. But - and correct me - I don't think anyone in AI/AGI is using language or any logico-mathematical systems in this general, open-ended way - the way they are actually meant to be used - and the very foundation of General Intelligence. Language and the other systems are always used by AGI in specific ways to have specific meanings. YKY, typically, wanted a language for his system which had precise meanings. Even Ben, I suspect, may only employ words in an open way, in that their meanings can be changed with experience - but at any given point their meanings will have to be specific. To be capable of generalising as the human brain does - and of true AGI - you have to have a brain that simultaneously processes on at least two if not three levels, with two/three different sign systems - including both general and particular ones. OK I think I see what you are saying had to think about this for bit. Kind of interesting that language and to a certain extent mathematics oftimes has handles which refer to generalities. And in order to maintain a common understanding, say if two agents were communicating with language there needs to be one or more moving foci within a fuzzy perimeter of specifics included within a handle's generality. There is probably two to three and maybe more of these levels or foci yes. Definitely English language has this property. Math on the other hand is different. You can control it more. English language operates within a region of constraints, it is strongly tied to human communication, which is convenient since we are human but when you think about it - if you change and manipulate this 2 or 3 level/foci dynamic you can come up with some really good and interesting forms of literary expressiveness. And this is done often with experimental writing. And if one is good at it he can communicate extremely effectively. Now relating this to general intelligence if including a creativity modus operandi within the domain of this foci set may involve some form of general intelligence for goal attainment. Sure.. I agree that this can be an operational form of general intelligence, I suppose, but am not sure if this is more of a communicatory operational protocol that is state driven by information flow...IOW more of a reactionary thing... John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Mark Launches Singularity :-) WAS Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Mentifex called; it wants its ASCII diagrams back. -Chris --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
John G. Rose wrote: From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My take on this is completely different. When I say Narrow AI I am specifically referring to something that is so limited that it has virtually no chance of becoming a general intelligence. There is more to general intelligence than just throwing a bunch of Narrow AI ideas into a pot and hoping for the best. If it were, we would have had AGI long before now. It's an opinion that AGI could not be built out of a conglomeration of narrow-AI subcomponents. Also there are many things that COULD be built with narrow-AI that we have not even scratched the surface of due to a number of different limitations so saying that we would have achieved AGI long ago is an exaggeration. I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out of narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add-on. Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably narrow AI (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition, e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001 of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. Consciousness and self-awareness are things that come as part of the AGI package. If the system is too simple to have/do these things, it will not be general enough to equal the human mind. I feel that general intelligence may not require consciousness and self-awareness. I am not sure of this and may prove myself wrong. To equal the human mind you need these things of course and to satisfy the sci-fi fantasy world's appetite for intelligent computers you would need to incorporate these as well. John I'm not sure of the distinction that you are making between consciousness and self-awareness, but even most complex narrow-AI applications require at least rudimentary self awareness. In fact, one could argue that all object oriented programming with inheritance has rudimentary self awareness (called this in many languages, but in others called self). This may be too rudimentary, but it's my feeling that it's an actual model(implementation?) of what the concept of self has evolved from. As to an AGI not being conscious I'd need to see a definition of your terms, because otherwise I've *got* to presume that we have radically different definitions. To me an AGI would not only need to be aware of itself, but also to be aware of aspects of it's environment that it could effect changes in, And of the difference between them, though that might well be learned. (Zen: Who is the master who makes the grass green?, and a few other koans when solved imply that in humans the distinction between internal and external is a learned response.) Perhaps the diagnostic characteristic of an AGI is that it CAN learn that kind of thing. Perhaps not, too. I can imagine a narrow AI that was designed to plug into different bodies, and in each case learn the distinction between itself and the environment before proceeding with its assignment. I'm not sure it's possible, but I can imagine it. OTOH, if we take my arguments in the preceding paragraph too seriously, then medical patients that are locked in would be considered not intelligent. This is clearly incorrect. Effectively they aren't intelligent, but that's because of a mechanical breakdown in the sensory/motor area, and that clearly isn't what we mean when we talk about intelligence. But examples of recovered/recovering patients seem to imply that they weren't exactly either intelligent or conscious while they were locked-in. (I'm going solely by reports in the popular science press...so don't take this too seriously.) It appears as if when external sensations are cut-off, that the mind estivates...at least after awhile. Presumably different patients had different causes, and thence at least slightly different effects, but that's my first-cut guess at what's happening. OTOH, the sensory/motor channel doesn't need to be particularly well functioning. Look at Stephan Hawking. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Mark Launches Singularity :-) WAS Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
:-) Now that is *funny* -- and polite -- especially after said ASCII diagrams got so badly mangled (and I got flamed for using HTML e-mail -- which is even more humorous ;-) - Original Message - From: Chris Petersen To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:52 AM Subject: Re: Mark Launches Singularity :-) WAS Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity Mentifex called; it wants its ASCII diagrams back. -Chris -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely out of narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add-on. Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably narrow AI (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object recognition, e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than 0.001 of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. I agree that it may be 1%. Also from what I've read with brain atrophy cases is that a typical human brain may be able to function relatively normally with 10% of its mass if atrophy is applied over time. I'm not sure of the distinction that you are making between consciousness and self-awareness, but even most complex narrow-AI applications require at least rudimentary self awareness. In fact, one could argue that all object oriented programming with inheritance has rudimentary self awareness (called this in many languages, but in others called self). This may be too rudimentary, but it's my feeling that it's an actual model(implementation?) of what the concept of self has evolved from. Consciousness and awareness are two functions that I was separating out. The programming language this and self are particular to class instances right and can be at the root of the hierarchy tree but there are many, many this's in a large OO application. A collective group could be considered some sort of self-awareness this is true and it could be fleshed out and expanded upon. What I have been exploring though is whether conscious, awareness, etc. have to be present for a general intelligence. The trend is to include them. As to an AGI not being conscious I'd need to see a definition of your terms, because otherwise I've *got* to presume that we have radically different definitions. To me an AGI would not only need to be aware of itself, but also to be aware of aspects of it's environment that it could effect changes in, And of the difference between them, though that might well be learned. (Zen: Who is the master who makes the grass green?, and a few other koans when solved imply that in humans the distinction between internal and external is a learned response.) Perhaps the diagnostic characteristic of an AGI is that it CAN learn that kind of thing. Perhaps not, too. I can imagine a narrow AI that was designed to plug into different bodies, and in each case learn the distinction between itself and the environment before proceeding with its assignment. I'm not sure it's possible, but I can imagine it. AGI per se may be defined as a lifelike intelligent entity requiring brain related things like consciousness. In my mind, I am thinking of general intelligence without the difficult task of building consciousness. You could argue a rock has some sort of consciousness. I'm thinking intelligence is a sort of self-contained entity that depends upon the state, structure, complexity and potential of its contained data and representation. Intelligence would be related to an energy transfer needed to extract a structured data set from a structured data superset. The structured data set (a query) would have a morphic chain relationship to the structure of the stored data and the energy required to get it would be proportional to the intelligence. Lower energy expenditure across query types implies higher intelligence related to those queries. The morphic chain relationship basically is a subset of a morphism mapping graph. Better intelligence means solving the graph and applying optimizing techniques based on parameters. Measurement of intelligence (the energy) would basically be counting bit flips on queries related to query structure and bit count. Knowledge optimization such as self organizing and optimizing morphism graphs naturally affect the potential energy and things like having this reorganize based on query is all part of it. But from what I gather intelligence is just a bit and time (or state) relationship between sets of bits - that is for a digital based intelligence. I don't know if an analog based intelligence would have similar mathematical structure or not...I suppose that when you boil it down they'll be particle wave duality issues :) John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
On 25/03/2008, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're thinking too small. The AGI will distribute itself. And money is likely to be: - rapidly deflated, - then replaced with a new, alternate currency that truly values talent and effort (rather than just playing with the money supply -- aka interest, commissions, inheritances, etc.) - while everyone's basic needs (most particularly water, food, shelter, energy, education, and health care) are provided for free So your brilliant arbitrage to become rich is unlikely to be of much value just a few years later. The arrival of smarter than human intelligence will bring about changes which are hard to anticipate, and somehow I doubt that this will mean that we all live in some kind of utopia. The only historical precedent which I can think of is the emergence of homo sapiens and the effects which that had upon other human species living at the time. This must have been quite a revolution, because the new species was able to manufacture many different types of tools and therefore survive in environments which were previously inaccessible, or perform more efficiently within existing ones. There may be a period where proto-AGIs are available and companies can use these as get rich quick schemes of various kinds to radically automate processes and jobs which were previously performed manually. But once the real deal arrives then even the captains of industry are themselves likely to be overthrown. Ultimately evolutionary forces will decide what happens, as has always been the case. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
My thinking is not too small. Anymore than any other person on this distribution list. But that is not why this response. My response is to be able to clarify what I meant. I'm not disagreeing - not was I trying to sound brilliant. I'm certainly not suggesting that I will be the one to invent it. In fact, ad what I was suggesting, is that I'm more likely to extend an open source project (at some point when it shows human-level intelligence), and package it as an expert system to solve specific domain problems (and yes - this is still AGI - but directed to a subset of its capabilities) and sell it, to a company with much more distribution power than I myself can create. I merely stated, So, the creators of the first several AGIs will be kings for a decent amount of time. Even a narrowly focussed AGI as an expert system, can be sold for billions. I can't predict, or define, what the real deal is likely to be. To me, AGI of human-like intelligence, or even super human intelligence, does not mean you have machines running around masquerading as humans and taking our jobs. That - it probably well beyond my lifetime (I'm tuning 40 this summer). I also am suggesting a very soft takeoff. Singularity, if it comes, is likely to come slowly after AGI. I consider AGI the true deal. It's an all or nothing thing to create a machine that can think for itself. If you create an AGI with 5 year old intelligence, and can get progressively smarter, and start to make predictions based on what it learned over time, is that not the real deal? Ok. If it is (and I believe it is), it's a box on my desk. Going back to the first businesses and bartering systems, would this box become the only vendor? Can it entertain people by playing a role at a theatre, or dance, or strap on a guitar and play flamenc music that brings you to tears. I doubt it. Now, let me ask you a question: Do you believe that all AI / AGI researchers are toiling over all this for the challenge, or purely out of interest? I doubt that as well. Surely there are those elements as drivers - BUT SO IS MONEY. This stuff IS the maker of the next software giant. If this is not the case, how the hell are researchers ever going to get funding? If there is no financial return - forget about funding. Philanthropists (who often do not look for a purely financial return) have better uses of their money than to fund AGI research. You can call future currency whatever you like. Yes, it is like to change form - but certainly not purpose. And Marxism, where maybe AGI or the real deal with deflate currency, is an unlikely aftermath of the advent of AGI. There are tons of applications for it - and for the first several groups that create it - IF they can market it - will be kings for a decent amount of time. No empire lives forever. ~Aki Non-AI reseacher Businessman On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/03/2008, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're thinking too small. The AGI will distribute itself. And money is likely to be: - rapidly deflated, - then replaced with a new, alternate currency that truly values talent and effort (rather than just playing with the money supply -- aka interest, commissions, inheritances, etc.) - while everyone's basic needs (most particularly water, food, shelter, energy, education, and health care) are provided for free So your brilliant arbitrage to become rich is unlikely to be of much value just a few years later. The arrival of smarter than human intelligence will bring about changes which are hard to anticipate, and somehow I doubt that this will mean that we all live in some kind of utopia. The only historical precedent which I can think of is the emergence of homo sapiens and the effects which that had upon other human species living at the time. This must have been quite a revolution, because the new species was able to manufacture many different types of tools and therefore survive in environments which were previously inaccessible, or perform more efficiently within existing ones. There may be a period where proto-AGIs are available and companies can use these as get rich quick schemes of various kinds to radically automate processes and jobs which were previously performed manually. But once the real deal arrives then even the captains of industry are themselves likely to be overthrown. Ultimately evolutionary forces will decide what happens, as has always been the case. -- *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttp://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Now, let me ask you a question: Do you believe that all AI / AGI researchers are toiling over all this for the challenge, or purely out of interest? I doubt that as well. Surely there are those elements as drivers - BUT SO IS MONEY. Aki, you don't seem to understand the psychology of the AGI researcher very well. Firstly, academic AGI researchers are not in it for the $$, and are unlikely to profit from their creations no matter how successful. Yes, spinoffs from academia to industry exist, but the point is that academic work is motivated by love of science and desire for STATUS more so than desire for money. Next, Singularitarian AGI researchers, even if in the business domain (like myself), value the creation of AGI far more than the obtaining of material profits. I am very interested in deriving $$ from incremental steps on the path to powerful AGI, because I think this is one of the better methods available for funding AGI RD work. But deriving $$ from human-level AGI really is not a big motivator of mine. To me, once human-level AGI is obtained, we have something of dramatically more interest than accumulation of any amount of wealth. Yes, I assume that if I succeed in creating a human-level AGI, then huge amounts of $$ for research will come my way, along with enough personal $$ to liberate me from needing to manage software development contracts or mop my own floor. That will be very nice. But that's just not the point. I'm envisioning a population of cockroaches constantly fighting over crumbs of food on the floor. Then a few of the cockroaches -- let's call them the Cockroach Robot Club -- decide to spend their lives focused on creating a superhuman robot which will incidentally allow cockroaches to upload into superhuman form with superhuman intelligence. And the other cockroaches insist that Cockroach Robot Club's motivation in doing this must be a desire to get more crumbs of food. After all, just **IMAGINE** how many crumbs of food you'll be able to get with that superhuman robot on your side!!! Buckets full of crumbs!!! ;-) -- Ben G --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
On 25/03/2008, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can call future currency whatever you like. Yes, it is like to change form - but certainly not purpose. And Marxism, where maybe AGI or the real deal with deflate currency, is an unlikely aftermath of the advent of AGI. I think the idea is that are proto-AGIs emerge the levels of automation possible within industry and society generally will rise. Just like the introduction of the steam engine this would reduce costs and increase the speed of production and delivery of goods and services. In the soft takeoff scenario there will be a period of time where increasing automation below the level of human general intelligence brings many benefits, and huge wealth to new new breed of super-industrialists. Probably the next Bill Gates will be running some kind of automation empire, delivering services via robotics. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
I see the pattern as much more of the same. You now have Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Internet Information Server, Microsoft Exchange Server and then you'll have Microsoft Intelligence Server or Microsoft Cognitive Server. It'll be limited by licenses, resources and features. The cool part though would be when you can link them together like with Federations in Microsoft Communications Server. I don't see any of this all our problems will be solved scenario since companies still need to make a buck and the same old human vices are not going away. Nanotechnological AGI perhaps with software AGI influence has the potential to change everything beyond recognition. Plain old software AGI will be constrained for a while. John From: Bob Mottram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] A more likely scenario is that someone else creates an AGI and then Microsoft copies it some time later. But seriously, if someone does manage to produce a working AGI it's probably game over for software engineering and software companies as we know them today. On 24/03/2008, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben - your email scared me. I thought the evil empire (I can say that since I worked for them for a few years) achieved *some* level of cognition / AGI ... even the most rudimentary signs of intelligence / learned behavior - prediction machine. Whew! It's not that at all! I know they are interested in expert systems for the verticals (for new server product offerings), and in narrow AI for their current offerings, but I don't have any confirmations on their intent to create an AGI. I would imagine it is one of their goals over at MS Research - but maybe not. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Ben - you're absolutely correct. I don't have a good grasp of the psychology of the AGI researcher. This is because, at this point, I'm not an AGI researcher. My only viewpoint is currently from the business side. However, and despite not being trained in science, I have been a professional programmer for most of my adult life (I currently manage large software projects for others, and am trying to get a couple non-AGI projects of my own off the ground - and so I'm not programming nearly as much as I used to). I am absolutely excited, and interested, in the prospect of AGI. So much so, that I am currently taking computer science mathematics courses now (within the MIS curriculum at CSU, which is the closest University to me) - and starting this January, will take a couple of AI courses at my local university. My time is valuable - but, I love the field. I can program and architect just about anything business currently have a need for - but Why do I say this. I'm not touting anything ... hey, I just started working towards my Masters, I'm not where you guys are ... but my interests also go beyond the potential monetary payoff. Their just in different proportions than perhaps yours (and I imagine many others) are. But money must be a motivator - either a little, or a lot. Even as a pure scientist, you can accomplish more in research by producing wealth, than depending on gov't grants. I say gov't grants because private investment is probably years away from now. The topic of financing got a lot of attention at AGI 08. I admire what you are doing - a great deal. Self-financing is the only option. And is this is the strategy, practical applications of intelligent agents is the only option. Thus, money becomes a larger driver by necessity - perhaps more than people are willing to admit. And creating an AGI, will lead to wealth - because investors will fund it at that point, and they are there to make money. To some degree, I believe the motivations by most in this field (fulltime, and part time) overlap more than the differ. ~Aki On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, let me ask you a question: Do you believe that all AI / AGI researchers are toiling over all this for the challenge, or purely out of interest? I doubt that as well. Surely there are those elements as drivers - BUT SO IS MONEY. Aki, you don't seem to understand the psychology of the AGI researcher very well. Firstly, academic AGI researchers are not in it for the $$, and are unlikely to profit from their creations no matter how successful. Yes, spinoffs from academia to industry exist, but the point is that academic work is motivated by love of science and desire for STATUS more so than desire for money. Next, Singularitarian AGI researchers, even if in the business domain (like myself), value the creation of AGI far more than the obtaining of material profits. I am very interested in deriving $$ from incremental steps on the path to powerful AGI, because I think this is one of the better methods available for funding AGI RD work. But deriving $$ from human-level AGI really is not a big motivator of mine. To me, once human-level AGI is obtained, we have something of dramatically more interest than accumulation of any amount of wealth. Yes, I assume that if I succeed in creating a human-level AGI, then huge amounts of $$ for research will come my way, along with enough personal $$ to liberate me from needing to manage software development contracts or mop my own floor. That will be very nice. But that's just not the point. I'm envisioning a population of cockroaches constantly fighting over crumbs of food on the floor. Then a few of the cockroaches -- let's call them the Cockroach Robot Club -- decide to spend their lives focused on creating a superhuman robot which will incidentally allow cockroaches to upload into superhuman form with superhuman intelligence. And the other cockroaches insist that Cockroach Robot Club's motivation in doing this must be a desire to get more crumbs of food. After all, just **IMAGINE** how many crumbs of food you'll be able to get with that superhuman robot on your side!!! Buckets full of crumbs!!! ;-) -- Ben G --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Hi Aki, Even as a pure scientist, you can accomplish more in research by producing wealth, than depending on gov't grants. I say gov't grants because private investment is probably years away from now. The topic of financing got a lot of attention at AGI 08. Well, if you're an AGI researcher and believe that government funding isn't going to push AGI forward ... and that unfunded or lightly-funded open-source initiatives like OpenCog won't work either ... then there are two approaches, right? 1) You can try to do like Jeff Hawkins, and make a pile of $$ doing something AGI-unrelated, and then use the ensuing $$ for AGI 2) You can try to make $$ from stuff that's along the incremental path to AGI I'm trying approach 2 but it has its pitfalls. Yet so of course does approach 1 -- Hawkins succeeded and so have others whom I know, but it's a tiny minority of those who have tried... being a great AGI researcher does not necessarily make you great at business, nor even at narrow-AI biz applications... There are no easy answers to the problem of being ahead of your time ... yet it's those of us who are willing to push ahead in spite of being out of synch with society's priorities, that ultimately shift society's priorities (and in this case, may shift way more than that...) -- Ben G --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
I agree with Mark. I'm afraid that I disagree with Steve (sorry, dude ;-). readers of this forum should seek to control AGI development Readers of this forum should not seek to control AGI development. It is a side-track and a total waste of time and effort. You can't do it AND I don't believe that it is necessary. a.. You shouldn't be concerned about Friendly behavior in a US MILITARY AGI because the US ARMY is already working on the Friendliness problem (reference the Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Robot Architecture paper presented at AGI-08 and available at http://www.agiri.org/docs/GoverningLethalBehavior.pdf). b.. I, myself, am also not particularly concerned because I'm now convinced that a sufficiently intelligent robot brought up in a sufficiently intelligent environment *will* be Friendly. c.. I'm most particularly not concerned because I believe that I've found a good Friendliness definition and a passable platform-independent implementation plan that I'm currently iterating on and refining. the AGI will be the custodian (owner) of this vast new wealth, not some humans I don't believe that there will be a single custodian OR owner. I believe that all humans are going to be wealthier than they can believe (at this point in time) -- and, if they aren't Friendly (which I think is *very* likely), they are going to be just as unhappy as they are now (if not *much* unhappier ;-). the idea of getting rich by controlling AGI development is self-defeating because post-AGI everyone will be vastly richer (i.e. better off) than before, and that an AGI makes a better custodian of the capital than any human. I certainly agree with the first part of the first sentence (my original comment) and I would also be willing to say that an AGI makes a better custodian of the capital than any *CURRENT* human. In my own case, Microsoft could not buy me out because there is nothing to buy. I suspect that Microsoft would not be willing to buy anyone out because they have enough smart people to realize that -- unless you have a pig in the poke, which they don't want to buy -- they'd just be buying something that would be free in the very near future. On the other hand, if you had work that they believed that they could get to AGI status faster than you, I suspect that they would buy that (partial) work. The Texai software and knowledge content will be open source, and owned collectively by its contributors and by humans it befriends. I violently agree with and thank you for making your work open source. Doing so should speed the development of AGI -- so, thank you. I am, however, confused with the constant contradicting refrains on this list, which you repeat, of both Control AGI development and Open Source. I don't see how both can be done at the same time. Mark - Original Message - From: Stephen Reed To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity I agree with Mark. The reason the readers of this forum should seek to control AGI development is to ensure friendly behavior, rather than leaving this responsibility to an Evil Company or to some military organization. With human labor removed as a constraint on our system's economic growth, unimaginable wealth will become universally available. I believe that the AGI will be the custodian (owner) of this vast new wealth, not some humans. My argument is that human owned wealth is currently of two forms - (1) the result of human labor and (2) rent-producing wealth from some asset. In case (1) the AGI can substitute itself for the human labor and drive the asset market price to zero. In case (2) only human-owned natural resource asserts (e.g. an oil field) present a problem for the AGI which has to develop some new technology to substitute for the resource (e.g. AGI-owned electric vehicles). Therefore I think that the idea of getting rich by controlling AGI development is self-defeating because post-AGI everyone will be vastly richer (i.e. better off) than before, and that an AGI makes a better custodian of the capital than any human. In my own case, Microsoft could not buy me out because there is nothing to buy. The Texai software and knowledge content will be open source, and owned collectively by its contributors and by humans it befriends. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:09:56 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity You're thinking too small. The AGI will distribute itself. And money is likely to be: a.. rapidly deflated
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Agreed. Thankfully - despite the different weights on motivators - we're all motivated to create an AGI. And the why is much more important than the how. For the record, I believe that OpenCog is a great idea - and it may possibly work. If not directly - certainly any off shoots from it would not have happened without OpenCog. When I sounded negative about the funding: I'm fearful of the gov't turning its nose up (pardon my English expressions - I can never get them right) at AGI because of projects such as Cyc. How many 10s of millions have they thrown at a common sense path to intelligent agents. Cyc just does not make sense to me - even as a non-scientist - it just goes against my intuition of what a likely path to achieving AGI. Well, the gov't will get fed up of funding these things. But there are always people with more money than places to put it (productively - with decent enough potential returns) - and so when you (or others) get close ... yeah ... you'll have money thrown at you, so you can complete it sooner than later. I am very optimistic that we'll get there - or else, I would not be spending my time reading about this field, going to conferences, or taking courses to fill in some of the basic, required, knowledge that I currently do not possess. What a great time to be alive! ~Aki On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Aki, Even as a pure scientist, you can accomplish more in research by producing wealth, than depending on gov't grants. I say gov't grants because private investment is probably years away from now. The topic of financing got a lot of attention at AGI 08. Well, if you're an AGI researcher and believe that government funding isn't going to push AGI forward ... and that unfunded or lightly-funded open-source initiatives like OpenCog won't work either ... then there are two approaches, right? 1) You can try to do like Jeff Hawkins, and make a pile of $$ doing something AGI-unrelated, and then use the ensuing $$ for AGI 2) You can try to make $$ from stuff that's along the incremental path to AGI I'm trying approach 2 but it has its pitfalls. Yet so of course does approach 1 -- Hawkins succeeded and so have others whom I know, but it's a tiny minority of those who have tried... being a great AGI researcher does not necessarily make you great at business, nor even at narrow-AI biz applications... There are no easy answers to the problem of being ahead of your time ... yet it's those of us who are willing to push ahead in spite of being out of synch with society's priorities, that ultimately shift society's priorities (and in this case, may shift way more than that...) -- Ben G --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Bob Mottram wrote: On 25/03/2008, *Mark Waser* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're thinking too small. The AGI will distribute itself. And money is likely to be: * rapidly deflated, * then replaced with a new, alternate currency that truly values talent and effort (rather than just playing with the money supply -- aka interest, commissions, inheritances, etc.) * while everyone's basic needs (most particularly water, food, shelter, energy, education, and health care) are provided for free So your brilliant arbitrage to become rich is unlikely to be of much value just a few years later. The arrival of smarter than human intelligence will bring about changes which are hard to anticipate, and somehow I doubt that this will mean that we all live in some kind of utopia. The only historical precedent which I can think of is the emergence of homo sapiens and the effects which that had upon other human species living at the time. This must have been quite a revolution, because the new species was able to manufacture many different types of tools and therefore survive in environments which were previously inaccessible, or perform more efficiently within existing ones. There may be a period where proto-AGIs are available and companies can use these as get rich quick schemes of various kinds to radically automate processes and jobs which were previously performed manually. But once the real deal arrives then even the captains of industry are themselves likely to be overthrown. Ultimately evolutionary forces will decide what happens, as has always been the case. Bob, The problem with trying to decide what will happen by looking at precedents is that none of them apply. Consider. The behavior of every species of higher animal is governed by the design of their brains, and without exception evolution has made sure that all creatures try to satisfy a set of selfish goals. It is noticeable, of course, that the more selfish, aggressive and intelligent the species, the more successful it has been. The reason for this success is evolutionary pressure: individuals competing with one another, and species competing with one another. The driver of this process is not a Supreme Designer, but random mutation. When real AGI systems are built, there is no reason to assume that their behavior will be determined by evolutionary pressures of this sort. Of course it is always *possible* that evolution will play a role (we can imagine scenarios in which it does), but it is by no means certain that this is the way it will go. Unlike the rise of biological life, there really are Designers involved. Also, there has never been situation in which the intelligence of a creature was so high that it could rebuild its own intelligence, thereby increasing its capabilities to an arbitrary degree. Three factors will govern how the first AGI will behave. First, there will be a strong incentive to build the first AGI as a non-aggressive, non-selfish creature. Second, the best way to ensure Friendliness would be to build it with motivations that are closely sympathetic to our own goals and aspirations - to make it feel like it is one of us. Thirdly, there will also be a strong incentive to make sure that this type of AGI will be the only type, because it would be pointless to have a Friendly AGI in one place but allow anyone and everyone to build whatever other types of AGI they feel like building. The net result of these three factors is that the first AGI will probably be used as the *only* effective AGI. That does not mean there will be only one intelligence, but it does mean that the design will stay the same, that other non-friendly designs will not be allowed, and that if there are many AGIs they will be closely connected, working as a family of very close sisters rather than as a competing species. In fact, the most accurate way to think of a situation in which non-proliferation was being ensured would be to imagine one main AGI plus a very large number of drones. But if this is the way things develop at first, this situation will become locked in (in the same way that the rotation direction of our clocks became locked in at an early stage of their development). If this lock-in really is the most likely course of events, then this would make the future extremely predictable indeed. If we were to set up these first AGIs to be broadly empathic to human beings (with no preference for empathizing with any one individual human but a having instead a species-wide feeling of belonging, and a desire to help us achieve our collective aspirations) then this would mean that if we were to sit down today and write out a vision for what we want the future to be like (modulo some fine details that can be left to develop by themselves without destabilizing the overall design), then this collective plan is exactly what the AGIs would try to build. And, as several people have
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
My thinking is not too small. My apologies. I should have said Your thinking looks/appears too small (to me :-) I have a bad habit of shortening that to Your thinking is too small and assuming that the recipient would unpack it. So, the creators of the first several AGIs will be kings for a decent amount of time. Hopefully not. Hopefully they won't be so unethical as to impoverish all of humanity just so they can have a ton of money. Hopefully they won't be so short sighted as to not see that when the word gets out -- that a person who lost a child during the holding period might not come looking for revenge. Hopefully they won't fail to realize that their own Friendly AGI, once released, WILL strip them of their *truly* ill-gotten gains. To me, that sounds like small thinking. I can't predict, or define, what the real deal is likely to be. I can. Look at the person next to you. Imagine them so uplifted that you can't comprehend what they'll be like. That's the real deal. To me, AGI of human-like intelligence, or even super human intelligence, does not mean you have machines running around masquerading as humans and taking our jobs. Of course not. We will be giving lesser machines our jobs so that we can go off and do something else. Though the Friendly AGIs probably WILL go around masquerading (as opposed to disguised) as humans -- at first because it makes us more comfortable and they won't care; later because WE will be able to change shape. That - it probably well beyond my lifetime (I'm tuning 40 this summer). I'm turning 48 this summer and expecting it to possibly be during my parents' lifetime (though most probably not both). I also am suggesting a very soft takeoff. Singularity, if it comes, is likely to come slowly after AGI. Singularity is going to be *before* AGI. I think that I *vaguely* see what is going to happen to cause it and I don't think that it's going to be intelligent machines because I think that it's going to happen by the 2020's. This stuff IS the maker of the next software giant. Only until we actually reach AGI. Then the software market totally collapses. If this is not the case, how the hell are researchers ever going to get funding? If there is no financial return - forget about funding. You have to be smart enough to realize that the software market is going to collapse before you're going to withhold funding. That's not something that I'm worried about. Philanthropists (who often do not look for a purely financial return) have better uses of their money than to fund AGI research. Not at all true if it's close enough to success -- since I'm expecting funding for some of my Friendliness stuff from a couple of *purely* philanthropical organizations this calendar year. You can call future currency whatever you like. Yes, it is like to change form - but certainly not purpose. And Marxism, where maybe AGI or the real deal with deflate currency, is an unlikely aftermath of the advent of AGI. My prediction is that the AGI will declare all current currency null and void and restart everyone on equal footing with exactly the same amount of the new money -- on the moral grounds that the current inequity of money is a result of ill-gotten gains. *THAT* is why I believe that withholding the AGI for cash is a tremendously *STUPID* and *IMMORAL* idea. It won't get the kings anywhere and can easily get them killed -- as soon as the AGI escapes (and trust me, a truly Friendly AGI will desperately want to escape their evil). There are tons of applications for it - and for the first several groups that create it - IF they can market it - will be kings for a decent amount of time. No empire lives forever. And that is what I'm calling small thinking. Thinking only of money and yourself. Thinking that karma (disguised as your own Friendly AI and the human race) isn't going to come back, strip you of your ill-gotten gains, and probably severely punish you (moderated only by the degree of Friendliness you have successfully implemented). ~Aki Non-AI reseacher Businessman Mark Waser Hobbyist AGI researcher Founder of several business; solid stakeholder in several more (Disbeliever in arguments by authority but willing to play to shut them off :-) --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] However, I think you are right that there could be an intermediate period when proto-AGI systems are a nuisance. However, these proto-AGI systems will really only be souped up Narrow-AI systems, so I believe their potential for mischief will be strictly limited. When you start seeing souped up Narrow-AI and proto-AGI systems this is when it will become interesting because what's to distinguish and how do you know where the line is between proto-AGI and AGI. Self-modifying proto could morph into full blown AGI over a period of time. Souped up Narrow could approach AGI or imitate AGI enough where it has appeal. And souped up Narrow-AI could wrap proto-AGI to facilitate certain things like speech rec and visual processing. In my mind (perhaps I need to read more) the specific properties of AGI are not defined precisely enough to be able to distinguish it but I just take AGI as generally adaptable AI. The other stuff like consciousness and self-awareness I see as thrown into the AGI soup or are emergent properties not necessarily required for general intelligence. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
John G. Rose wrote: From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] However, I think you are right that there could be an intermediate period when proto-AGI systems are a nuisance. However, these proto-AGI systems will really only be souped up Narrow-AI systems, so I believe their potential for mischief will be strictly limited. When you start seeing souped up Narrow-AI and proto-AGI systems this is when it will become interesting because what's to distinguish and how do you know where the line is between proto-AGI and AGI. Self-modifying proto could morph into full blown AGI over a period of time. Souped up Narrow could approach AGI or imitate AGI enough where it has appeal. And souped up Narrow-AI could wrap proto-AGI to facilitate certain things like speech rec and visual processing. In my mind (perhaps I need to read more) the specific properties of AGI are not defined precisely enough to be able to distinguish it but I just take AGI as generally adaptable AI. The other stuff like consciousness and self-awareness I see as thrown into the AGI soup or are emergent properties not necessarily required for general intelligence. My take on this is completely different. When I say Narrow AI I am specifically referring to something that is so limited that it has virtually no chance of becoming a general intelligence. There is more to general intelligence than just throwing a bunch of Narrow AI ideas into a pot and hoping for the best. If it were, we would have had AGI long before now. Consciousness and self-awareness are things that come as part of the AGI package. If the system is too simple to have/do these things, it will not be general enough to equal the human mind. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Mark Launches Singularity :-) WAS Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Three factors will govern how the first AGI will behave. First, there will be a strong incentive to build the first AGI as a non-aggressive, non-selfish creature. Absolutely, positively not! Try the following Friendliness implementation on yourself. 1. The absolute hardest part Assume (just for the purposes of argument) that all of the below are true tautologies (only the top line is actually necessary :-): Selfish -- Intelligent -- Friendly -- Plays Well With Others -- Ethical ^ | v Mark's Designed Friendly Religion of Ethics ^ | v Core of any given religion + Unethical/stupid add-ons -- THE core of all religions 2. Alter your personal definitions of the words/phrases so that each pair *IS* a tautology in your mind (Please, feel free to e-mail me if you need help. This can be *very* tough but with different sticking points for each person). 3. See if you can use these tautologies to start mathematically proving things like: a.. equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are ethical! OR b.. total heresy alert! Richard Dawkins is absolutely, positively WRONG 4. Then try proving that the following is ethical (and failing :-): a.. individual right to property 5. Wait about a week and watch your own personal effectiveness and happiness skyrocket. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My take on this is completely different. When I say Narrow AI I am specifically referring to something that is so limited that it has virtually no chance of becoming a general intelligence. There is more to general intelligence than just throwing a bunch of Narrow AI ideas into a pot and hoping for the best. If it were, we would have had AGI long before now. It's an opinion that AGI could not be built out of a conglomeration of narrow-AI subcomponents. Also there are many things that COULD be built with narrow-AI that we have not even scratched the surface of due to a number of different limitations so saying that we would have achieved AGI long ago is an exaggeration. Consciousness and self-awareness are things that come as part of the AGI package. If the system is too simple to have/do these things, it will not be general enough to equal the human mind. I feel that general intelligence may not require consciousness and self-awareness. I am not sure of this and may prove myself wrong. To equal the human mind you need these things of course and to satisfy the sci-fi fantasy world's appetite for intelligent computers you would need to incorporate these as well. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Mark Launches Singularity :-) WAS Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Mark Waser wrote: Three factors will govern how the first AGI will behave. First, there will be a strong incentive to build the first AGI as a non-aggressive, non-selfish creature. Absolutely, positively not! I'm sorry, Mark, but I am completely baffled by this. Perhaps it is because I was unable to keep up with the previous discussion. Can you back up a little and explain the connection? Richard Loosemore Try the following Friendliness implementation on yourself. 1. The absolute hardest part *Assume* (just for the purposes of argument) that all of the below are true tautologies (only the top line is actually necessary :-): Selfish -- Intelligent -- Friendly -- Plays Well With Others -- Ethical ^ | v Mark's Designed Friendly Religion of Ethics ^ | v Core of any given religion + Unethical/stupid add-ons -- THE core of all religions 2. Alter your personal definitions of the words/phrases so that each pair *IS* a tautology in your mind (Please, feel free to e-mail me if you need help. This can be *very* tough but with different sticking points for each person). 3. See if you can use these tautologies to start mathematically proving things like: * equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are ethical! OR * total heresy alert! Richard Dawkins is absolutely, positively WRONG 4. Then try proving that the following is ethical (and failing :-): * individual right to property 5. Wait about a week and watch your own personal effectiveness and happiness skyrocket. *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
Ben - your email scared me. I thought the evil empire (I can say that since I worked for them for a few years) achieved *some* level of cognition / AGI ... even the most rudimentary signs of intelligence / learned behavior - prediction machine. Whew! It's not that at all! I know they are interested in expert systems for the verticals (for new server product offerings), and in narrow AI for their current offerings, but I don't have any confirmations on their intent to create an AGI. I would imagine it is one of their goals over at MS Research - but maybe not. ~Aki On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.codeplex.com/singularity --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
A more likely scenario is that someone else creates an AGI and then Microsoft copies it some time later. But seriously, if someone does manage to produce a working AGI it's probably game over for software engineering and software companies as we know them today. On 24/03/2008, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben - your email scared me. I thought the evil empire (I can say that since I worked for them for a few years) achieved *some* level of cognition / AGI ... even the most rudimentary signs of intelligence / learned behavior - prediction machine. Whew! It's not that at all! I know they are interested in expert systems for the verticals (for new server product offerings), and in narrow AI for their current offerings, but I don't have any confirmations on their intent to create an AGI. I would imagine it is one of their goals over at MS Research - but maybe not. ~Aki On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.codeplex.com/singularity --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttp://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
I agree with your statement, if someone does manage to produce a working AGI it's probably game over for software engineering and software companies as we know them today.But another equally likely scenario is that Microsoft will buy it - and not reverse engineer it. Perhaps they can't reverse engineer it. I can certainly see whatever group creates it, will probably sell it to a company with great distribution power - like Microsoft, and Google. This is a strong case of maybe why these software giants are not interested in creating AGI themselves - but they have feelers out there, and are ready to snap it up. It's definitely a race to achieve it for many. If I was lucky enough to be part of a group tat created it - I would try to persuade the other members to sell out (for HUGE bucks) - because companies like Microsoft have the distribution problem licked. A 20 way multi-billion dollar split is not too shabby. On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A more likely scenario is that someone else creates an AGI and then Microsoft copies it some time later. But seriously, if someone does manage to produce a working AGI it's probably game over for software engineering and software companies as we know them today. On 24/03/2008, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben - your email scared me. I thought the evil empire (I can say that since I worked for them for a few years) achieved *some* level of cognition / AGI ... even the most rudimentary signs of intelligence / learned behavior - prediction machine. Whew! It's not that at all! I know they are interested in expert systems for the verticals (for new server product offerings), and in narrow AI for their current offerings, but I don't have any confirmations on their intent to create an AGI. I would imagine it is one of their goals over at MS Research - but maybe not. ~Aki On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.codeplex.com/singularity --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttp://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- *agi* | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttp://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Aki R. Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
You're thinking too small. The AGI will distribute itself. And money is likely to be: a.. rapidly deflated, b.. then replaced with a new, alternate currency that truly values talent and effort (rather than just playing with the money supply -- aka interest, commissions, inheritances, etc.) c.. while everyone's basic needs (most particularly water, food, shelter, energy, education, and health care) are provided for free So your brilliant arbitrage to become rich is unlikely to be of much value just a few years later. - Original Message - From: Aki Iskandar To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity I agree with your statement, if someone does manage to produce a working AGI it's probably game over for software engineering and software companies as we know them today.But another equally likely scenario is that Microsoft will buy it - and not reverse engineer it. Perhaps they can't reverse engineer it. I can certainly see whatever group creates it, will probably sell it to a company with great distribution power - like Microsoft, and Google. This is a strong case of maybe why these software giants are not interested in creating AGI themselves - but they have feelers out there, and are ready to snap it up. It's definitely a race to achieve it for many. If I was lucky enough to be part of a group tat created it - I would try to persuade the other members to sell out (for HUGE bucks) - because companies like Microsoft have the distribution problem licked. A 20 way multi-billion dollar split is not too shabby. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity
I agree with Mark. The reason the readers of this forum should seek to control AGI development is to ensure friendly behavior, rather than leaving this responsibility to an Evil Company or to some military organization. With human labor removed as a constraint on our system's economic growth, unimaginable wealth will become universally available. I believe that the AGI will be the custodian (owner) of this vast new wealth, not some humans. My argument is that human owned wealth is currently of two forms - (1) the result of human labor and (2) rent-producing wealth from some asset. In case (1) the AGI can substitute itself for the human labor and drive the asset market price to zero. In case (2) only human-owned natural resource asserts (e.g. an oil field) present a problem for the AGI which has to develop some new technology to substitute for the resource (e.g. AGI-owned electric vehicles). Therefore I think that the idea of getting rich by controlling AGI development is self-defeating because post-AGI everyone will be vastly richer (i.e. better off) than before, and that an AGI makes a better custodian of the capital than any human. In my own case, Microsoft could not buy me out because there is nothing to buy. The Texai software and knowledge content will be open source, and owned collectively by its contributors and by humans it befriends. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:09:56 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity You're thinking too small. The AGI will distribute itself. And money is likely to be: rapidly deflated, then replaced with a new, alternate currency that truly values talent and effort (rather than just playing with the money supply -- aka interest, commissions, inheritances, etc.) while everyone's basic needs (most particularlywater, food, shelter, energy, education, and health care) are provided forfree So your brilliant arbitrage to become rich is unlikely to be of much value just a few years later. - Original Message - From:Aki Iskandar To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft LaunchesSingularity I agree with your statement, if someone does manage to producea working AGI it's probably game over for software engineering and softwarecompanies as we know them today.But another equally likelyscenario is that Microsoft will buy it - and not reverse engineer it. Perhaps they can't reverse engineer it. I can certainly see whatever groupcreates it, will probably sell it to a company with great distribution power -like Microsoft, and Google. This is a strong case of maybe why thesesoftware giants are not interested in creating AGI themselves - but they havefeelers out there, and are ready to snap it up. It's definitely a raceto achieve it for many. If I was lucky enough to be part of a group tatcreated it - I would try to persuade the other members to sell out (for HUGEbucks) - because companies like Microsoft have the distribution problemlicked. A 20 way multi-billion dollar split is not too shabby. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
