Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
On 22 Oct 2006 at 17:22, Samantha Atkins wrote: It is a lot easier I imagine to find many people willing and able to donate on the order of $100/month indefinitely to such a cause than to find one or a few people to put up the entire amount. I am sure that has already been kicked around. Why wouldn't it work though? There have been many, many well funded AGI projects in the past, public and private. Most of them didn't produce anything useful at all. A few managed some narrow AI spinoffs. Most of the directors of those projects were just as confident about success as Ben and Peter are. All of them were wrong. No-one on this list has produced any evidence (publically) that they can succeed where all previous attempts failed other than cute powerpoint slides - which all the previous projects had too. All you can do judge architecture by the vauge descriptions given, and the history of AI strongly suggests that even when full details are available, even so-called experts completely suck at judging what will work and what won't. The chances of arbitrary donors correctly ascertaining what approaches will work are effectively zero. The usual strategy is to judge by hot buzzword count and apparent project credibility (number of PhDs, papers published by leader, how cool the website and offices are, number of glowing writeups in specialist press; remember Thinking Machines Corp?). Needless to say, this doesn't have a good track record either. As far as I can see, there are only two good reasons to throw funding at a specific AGI project you're not actually involved in (ignoring the critical FAI problem for a moment); hard evidence that the software in question can produce intelligent behaviour significantly in advance of the state of the art, or a genuinely novel attack on the problem - not just a new mix of AI concepts in the architecture, /everyone/ vaguely credible has that, a genuinely new methodology. Both of those have an expiry date after a few years with no further progress. I'd say the SIAI had a genuinely new methodology with the whole provable-FAI idea and to a lesser extent some of the nonpublished Bayesian AGI stuff that immediately followed LOGI, but I admit that they may well be past the 'no useful further results' expiry date for continued support from strangers. Setting up a structure that can handle the funding is a secondary issue. It's nontrivial, but it's clearly within the range of what reasonably competent and experienced people can do. The primary issue is evidence that raises the probability that any one project is going to buck the very high prior for failure, and neither hand-waving, buzzwords or powerpoint (should) cut it. Even detailed descriptions of the architecture with associated functional case studies, while interesting to read and perhaps convincing for other experts, historically won't help non-expert donors make the right choice. Radically novel projects like the SIAI /may/ be an exception (in a good or bad way), but for relatively conventional groups like AGIRI and AAII insist on seeing some of this supposedly already-amazing software before choosing which project to back. Personally if I had to back an AGI project other than our research approach at Bitphase, and I wasn't so dubious about his Friendliness strategy, I'd go with James Rogers' project, but I'd still estimate a less-than-5% chance of success even with indefinite funding. Ben would be a little way behind that with the proviso that I know his Friendliness strategy sucks, but he has been improving both that and his architecture so it's conceivable (though alas unlikely) that he'll fix it in time. AAII would be some way back behind that, with the minor benefit that if their architecture ever made it to AGI it's probably too opaque to undergo early take-off, but with the huge downside that when it finally does enter an accelerating recursive self-improvement phase what I know of the structure strongly suggests that the results will be effectively arbitrary (i.e. really bad). As noted, hard demonstrations of both capability and scaling (from anyone) will rapidly increase those probability estimates. I understand why many researchers are so careful about disclosure, but frankly without it I think it's unrealistic verging on dishonest to expect significant donated funding (ignoring the question of why the hell /companies/ would be fishing for donnations instead of investment). Michael Wilson Director of Research and Development Bitphase AI Ltd - http://www.bitphase.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: Michael, I think your summary of the situation is in many respects accurate; but, an interesting aspect you don't mention has to do with the disclosure of technical details... In the case of Novamente, we have sufficient academic credibility and know-how that we could easily publish a raft of journal papers on the details of Novamente's design and preliminary experimentation. With this behind us, it would not be hard for us to get a moderate-sized team of somewhat-prestigious academic AI researchers on board ... and then we could almost surely raise funding from conventional government research funding sources. This process would take a number of years but is a well-understood process and would be very likely to succeed. I think you need more funds to even do this as I have been waiting sometime for some Amazon pre-orders on books you are putting out to be filled. The main problem then boils down to the Friendliness issue. Do we really want to put a set of detailed scientific ideas, some validated via software work already, that we believe are capable of dramatically accelerating progress toward AGI, into the public domain? Perhaps it is rational to do so, on the grounds that we will be able to progress more rapidly toward AGI than anyone else with the funding that this disclosure will bring, even if others have exposure to our basic concepts. But I have not reached the point of deciding so, yet As I believe that humanity is at very large risk unless massively more intelligence is brought into the environment fairly soon, I find it much more risky if the best AGI ideas are locked up in a relatively few often underfunded heads. I don't believe that you or even Eliezer are more likely to produce a friendly AGI than all other people who may build on more knowledge. Also Friendliness per se is generally not a card I see you lay down as a primary reason. - samantha - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] AGI funding: US versus China
On 23 Oct 2006 at 9:39, Josh Treadwell wrote: This is a big problem. If China was a free nation, I wouldn't have any qualms with it, but the first thing China will do with AGI is marginalize human rights. Any nation who censors it's internet (violators are sent to prisoner/slave camps) and sells organs of unwilling executed prisoners (more are executed each year in china than the entire world combined) is not a place I'd like AGI to be developed. I hope Hugo doesn't regret his decision. Last time I checked, Hugo de Garis was all for hard takeoff of arbitrary AGIs as soon as possible, and damn the consequences. This is someone who gleefully predicts massively destructive wars between 'terrans' and 'cosmists', and expects humanity to be made extinct by 'artilects', and actually wants to /hasten the arrival of this/. While I'd have to characterise this goal system as quite literally insane, the decision to accept funding from totalitarian regiemes is actually a quite rational consequence. His architecture (at least as of 'CAM-brain') is just about as horribly emergent and uncontrollable/unpredictable as it is possible to get. If you accept hard takeoff, and you're using an architecture like that, then it doesn't make a jot of difference what petty political goals your funders might have; they're as irrelevant as everyone else's goals once the hard takeoff kicks in. Fortunately there's no short term prospect of anything like that actually working, but given enough zettaflops of nanotech-supplied compute power it might start to be a serious problem. I'm guessing that his backers are looking for PR and/or limited commercial spinoffs though. Michael Wilson Director of Research and Development Bitphase AI Ltd - http://www.bitphase.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
Though I have remained often-publiclyopposed to emergence and 'fuzzy' design since first realising what the true consequences (of the heavily enhanced-GA-based system I was workingon at the time) were, as far as I know I haven't made that particularmistake again.Whereas, my view is that it is precisely the effective combination of probabilistic logic with complex systems science (including the notion of emergence) that will lead to, finally, a coherent and useful theoretical framework for designing and analyzing AGI systems... I am also interested in creating a fundamental theoretical framework for AGI, but am pursuing this on the backburner in parallel with practical work on Novamente (even tho I personally find theoretical work more fun...). I find that in working on the theoretical framework it is very helpful to proceed in the context of a well-fleshed-out practical design... -- Ben G This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
On 10/23/06, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you could say that the economics of responding to the mere threat of war is adequate to drive all the research the military does. Yes I agree but why is the threat of war always the motive? Do not think that there are other possible economical ways to motivate the military to want to concentrate on singularity-level events or am I wasting my time trying to be optimistic? Just Curious Anna:) On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Anna Taylor wrote: On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote: But I agree that huge military RD expenditure (which already supports many, many research groups) is the place most likely to produce singularity-level events. I am aware that the military is the most likely place to produce singularity-level events, i'm just trying to stay optimistic that a war won't be the answer to advancing it. War per se does not advance military research, but economics and logistics. If it was about killing people, we could have stopped at clubs and spears. The cost of RD and procurement of new systems, supporting and front line, are usually completely recovered within a decade of deployment relative to the systems they replace, so it is actually a profitable enterprise of sorts. This is the primary reason military expenditures as a percentage of GDP continue to rapidly shrink -- even in the US -- while the apparent capabilities do not. So you could say that the economics of responding to the mere threat of war is adequate to drive all the research the military does. Short of completely eliminating the military, there will always be plenty of reason to do the RD without ever firing a shot. While I am doubtful that the military RD programs will directly yield AGI, they do fund a lot of interesting blue sky research. J. Andrew Rogers - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring the mass is only going to limit the potential of any idea. People buy CD's, watch tv, download music, chat, read (if you're lucky) therefore the only possible solution is to find a way to integrate within the mass population. (Unless ofcourse, the scientific technological world really doesn't mean to participate within the general public, I would assume that's a possibility.) Then I think we should record some singularity music. I'm moving to being a working DJ as a hobby, so if anyone can throw me some danceable 130 bpm singularity songs that'd be great :) This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical interface to Novamente. As soon as Novamente makes a hit tune, can represent itself as a funky looking person and dance suggestively, you'll have legions of young fans (who will eventually grow up) and you can use your signing deals to fund further AGI research! [ Whether you tell people that Novamente is a human or not is another story ] -- -Joel Wish not to seem, but to be, the best. -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
Gregory, I don't think the military or industries related to the military are working on any sort of a general intelligence system. Narrow AI is fairly mainstream and I can see the military working on various projects in that realm, but general AI is a pretty specialized problem most scientists dismiss as too difficult with current technology. I'm obviously not privy to research going on in militaries around the world, but I think it is much more likely that the first general AI will come from a team that develops a sufficient understanding of all the complexity involved in building a digital intelligence. The military and other researchers will probably jump in later on, but the initial breakthroughs are going to probably come from a small team with the right approach due to the highly specialized nature of the problem. Mark From: Gregory Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:43:44 -0500 I note that Ray Kurzweil, is also an advisor to some military computational projects. If I was Ray I would find the gauranteed profit in servicing a market that does not have to respond to the market and social ups and down might be just what I need to see some AGI RD turned into prototypes post haste. A luddite backlash like the GMO foods thing would drastically slow down AGI in its early phases. Once military prototypes work under the rigorous conditions of the global white spy/black spy world , they might be safely brought into the normal commercial world. I most certainly am not a proponent of the military industrial complex as opposed to the Japanese and German business models , but it is my sense that that is not where the world is headed at the moment. Perhaps the singularity will be a top secret event and it will be the AGI who will decide how and when to make it go public. .?? On 10/23/06, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Anna Taylor wrote: On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote: But I agree that huge military RD expenditure (which already supports many, many research groups) is the place most likely to produce singularity-level events. I am aware that the military is the most likely place to produce singularity-level events, i'm just trying to stay optimistic that a war won't be the answer to advancing it. War per se does not advance military research, but economics and logistics. If it was about killing people, we could have stopped at clubs and spears. The cost of RD and procurement of new systems, supporting and front line, are usually completely recovered within a decade of deployment relative to the systems they replace, so it is actually a profitable enterprise of sorts. This is the primary reason military expenditures as a percentage of GDP continue to rapidly shrink -- even in the US -- while the apparent capabilities do not. So you could say that the economics of responding to the mere threat of war is adequate to drive all the research the military does. Short of completely eliminating the military, there will always be plenty of reason to do the RD without ever firing a shot. While I am doubtful that the military RD programs will directly yield AGI, they do fund a lot of interesting blue sky research. J. Andrew Rogers - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo005002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
On 10/23/06, Joel Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I think we should record some singularity music. If you have lyrics to describe exactly what the singularity will be, I would love to hear your music:) This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical interface to Novamente. As soon as Novamente makes a hit tune, it can represent itself as a funky looking person and dance suggestively, you'll have legions of young fans (who will eventually grow up) and you can use your signing deals to fund further AGI research. Wouldn't be any different from Arnold and politics. Anna:) On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring the mass is only going to limit the potential of any idea. People buy CD's, watch tv, download music, chat, read (if you're lucky) therefore the only possible solution is to find a way to integrate within the mass population. (Unless ofcourse, the scientific technological world really doesn't mean to participate within the general public, I would assume that's a possibility.) Then I think we should record some singularity music. I'm moving to being a working DJ as a hobby, so if anyone can throw me some danceable 130 bpm singularity songs that'd be great :) This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical interface to Novamente. As soon as Novamente makes a hit tune, can represent itself as a funky looking person and dance suggestively, you'll have legions of young fans (who will eventually grow up) and you can use your signing deals to fund further AGI research! [ Whether you tell people that Novamente is a human or not is another story ] -- -Joel Wish not to seem, but to be, the best. -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[singularity] RE: the musical singularity
Dear Joel, About six months ago I asked the WTA talk list for their recommendations of H+ music. I sent their suggestions, along with my own research list of H+ music back to the WTA talk list. I'll cut and paste some of the items below. It's not exactly all singularity music, but it's in the neighborhood. ;-) I can't attest to the 130 bpm. But I'm an ex-dancer and I can dance to anything, so you may be more selective! Musicians with a periodic or consistent pro H+ or pro hi-tech humanity point of view: Radiohead (esp. the album OK Computer) The Sugarcubes/Bjork David Bowie Red Harvest Cyanotic - the album Transhuman Posthuman Flaming Lips Thomas Dolby Our Lady Peace Cursor Miner - esp. Remote Control -- very dancable electronica if you're not familiar with him Hawkwind Selected pieces: Paul Kantner/Jefferson Airplane -- Crowns of Creation Yes -- Machine Messiah Papa Roach -- Singular Indestructible Droid U2 -- Original of the Species (okay, I know it's supposed to be about The Edge's daughter or something, but YOU tell me what it's about...) David Bowie -- Ashes to Ashes (just depends how you want to interpret it, and like most of his songs, he gives you several ways.. I also like Beck's cover of Diamond Dogs that he did for Moulin Rouge When you're looking for it, songs take on all kinds of significance. Think about The Beatles Nowhere Man in a Singularity light... I've never listened to any of the following: Marilyn Manson -- Posthuman Bunnyhug - Posthuman Man Vesania -- Path II - the Posthuman Kind (Polish death metal...!) Burnt Sugar the Arkestra Chamber -- More Than Posthuman - Rise of the Mojosexual Cotillion (winner of the best H+ album title!) And someone recommended the anti-transhumanist song, Mechanical Animals, by Marilyn Manson. The lyrics below were so great, I had to include some here for their sheer brilliance: You were my mechanical bride You were phenobarbidoll A manniqueen of depression With the face of a dead star And I was a hand grenade That never stopped exploding You were automatic and as hollow as the o in god And yes, I agree, very ironic coming from Marilyn, especially since he's married to Dita von Teese... ;-) BTW, I like Beck's new album, The Information. Not Singularity or even H+, but does address advancing tech issues and alienation in places. (I'm listening to it as I write...) Hope all is well. PJ Then I think we should record some singularity music. I'm moving to being a working DJ as a hobby, so if anyone can throw me some danceable 130 bpm singularity songs that'd be great :) This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical interface to Novamente. As soon as Novamente makes a hit tune, can represent itself as a funky looking person and dance suggestively, you'll have legions of young fans (who will eventually grow up) and you can use your signing deals to fund further AGI research! [ Whether you tell people that Novamente is a human or not is another story ] -- -Joel Wish not to seem, but to be, the best. -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [singularity] RE: the musical singularity -- OOPS!
Damn it. I meant to send that offline... Sorry! PJ - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
