Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Samantha Atkins wrote:I have been in conferences of futurists no less where over 70% of the audience raises their hand that they would likely not avail themselves of immortality if it was immediately available!The conservative preservation of the known goes a lot deeper than we credit.That's quite a percentage. I wonder what the number would be for the public at large. Did anyone ask this group of futurists what their major objection to immortality is? Religious reasons? Eric B. Ramsay singularity | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Mike: I am a novice to this AGI business and so I am not being cute with the following question: What, in your opinion, would be the first AGI problem to tackle. Perhaps theses various problems can't be priority ordered but nontheless, which problem stands out for you?. Thanks. Eric B. Ramsay Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that is all that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in all haste. Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions - although it is also a framework to end discussions for the moment. 1) Given our general ignorance, everyone is, strictly, entitled to their opinions about the future of AGI. Ben is entitled to his view that it will only take $50M or thereabouts. BUT 2) Not a SINGLE problem of AGI has been solved yet. Not a damn one. Is anyone arguing different? And until you've solved one, you can hardly make *reasonable* predictions about how long it will take to solve the rest - predictions that anyone, including yourself should take seriously- especially if you've got any sense, any awareness of AI's long, ridiculous and incorrigible record of crazy predictions here, (and that's by Minsky's Simon's as well as lesser lights) - by people also making predictions without having solved any of AGI's problems. All investors beware. Massive health wealth warnings. MEANWHILE 3)Others - and I'm not the only one here - take a view more like: the human brain/body is the most awesomely complex machine in the known universe, the product of billions of years of evolution. To emulate it, or parallel its powers, is going to take more like many not just trillions but zillions of dollars - many times global output, many, many Microsoft's. Now right now that's a reasonable POV too. But until you've solved one, just a measly one of AGI's problems, there's not a lot of point in further discussion, is there? Nobody's really gaining from it, are they? It's just masturbation, isn't it? --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI
John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you look at the state of internet based intelligence now, all the data and its structure, the potential for chain reaction or a sort of structural vacuum exists and it is accumulating a potential at an increasing rate. IMO... So you see the arrival of a Tipping Point as per Malcolm Gladwell. Whether I physically benefit from the arrival of the Singularity or not, I just want to see the damn thing. I would invest some modest sums in AGI if we could get a huge collection plate going around (these collection plate amounts add up!). Eric B. Ramsay --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
If I understand what I have read in this thread so far, there is Ben on the one hand suggesting $10 mil. with 10-30 people in 3 to 10 years and on the other there is Matt saying $1quadrillion, using a billion brains in 30 years. I don't believe I have ever seen such a divergence of opinion before on what is required for a technological breakthrough (unless people are not being serious and I am being naive). I suppose this sort of non-consensus on such a scale could be part of investor reticence. Eric B. Ramsay Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Mike Tintner wrote: Matt : a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow domains of expertise. And Santa will answer every child's request, and we'll all live happily ever after. Amen. If you have a legitimate criticism of the technology or its funding plan, I would like to hear it. I understand there will be doubts about a system I expect to cost over $1 quadrillion and take 30 years to build. The protocol specifies natural language. This is not a hard problem in narrow domains. It dates back to the 1960's. Even in broad domains, most of the meaning of a message is independent of word order. Google works on this principle. But this is beside the point. The critical part of the design is an incentive for peers to provide useful services in exchange for resources. Peers that appear most intelligent and useful (and least annoying) are most likely to have their messages accepted and forwarded by other peers. People will develop domain experts and routers and put them on the net because they can make money through highly targeted advertising. Google would be a peer on the network with a high reputation. But Google controls only 0.1% of the computing power on the Internet. It will have to compete with a system that allows updates to be searched instantly, where queries are persistent, and where a query or message can initiate conversations with other people in real time. Which are these areas of science, technology, arts, or indeed any area of human activity, period, where the experts all agree and are NOT in deep conflict? And if that's too hard a question, which are the areas of AI or AGI, where the experts all agree and are not in deep conflict? I don't expect the experts to agree. It is better that they don't. There are hard problem remaining to be solved in language modeling, vision, and robotics. We need to try many approaches with powerful hardware. The network will decide who the winners are. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
Sure, but Matt is also suggesting that his path is the most viable and so from the point of view of an investor, he/she is faced with very divergent opinions on the type of resources needed to get to the AGI expeditiously. It's far easier to understand wide price swings in a spaceship to get from here to Mars (or wherever) depending on how extravagantly you want to travel but if you define the problem as just get there, I am confident the costs will not be different by a factor of 100 million. Eric B. Ramsay Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Matt and I are talking about building totally different kinds of systems... I believe the system he wants to build would cost a huge amount ... but I don't think it's the most interesting sorta thing to build ... A decent analogue would be spaceships. All sorts of designs exist, some orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than others. It's more practical to build the cheaper ones, esp. when they're also more powerful ;-p ben On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Eric B. Ramsay wrote: If I understand what I have read in this thread so far, there is Ben on the one hand suggesting $10 mil. with 10-30 people in 3 to 10 years and on the other there is Matt saying $1quadrillion, using a billion brains in 30 years. I don't believe I have ever seen such a divergence of opinion before on what is required for a technological breakthrough (unless people are not being serious and I am being naive). I suppose this sort of non-consensus on such a scale could be part of investor reticence. Eric B. Ramsay Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Mike Tintner wrote: Matt : a super-google will answer these questions by routing them to experts on these topics that will use natural language in their narrow domains of expertise. And Santa will answer every child's request, and we'll all live happily ever after. Amen. If you have a legitimate criticism of the technology or its funding plan, I would like to hear it. I understand there will be doubts about a system I expect to cost over $1 quadrillion and take 30 years to build. The protocol specifies natural language. This is not a hard problem in narrow domains. It dates back to the 1960's. Even in broad domains, most of the meaning of a message is independent of word order. Google works on this principle. But this is beside the point. The critical part of the design is an incentive for peers to provide useful services in exchange for resources. Peers that appear most intelligent and useful (and least annoying) are most likely to have their messages accepted and forwarded by other peers. People will develop domain experts and routers and put them on the net because they can make money through highly targeted advertising. Google would be a peer on the network with a high reputation. But Google controls only 0.1% of the computing power on the Internet. It will have to compete with a system that allows updates to be searched instantly, where queries are persistent, and where a query or message can initiate conversations with other people in real time. Which are these areas of science, technology, arts, or indeed any area of human activity, period, where the experts all agree and are NOT in deep conflict? And if that's too hard a question, which are the areas of AI or AGI, where the experts all agree and are not in deep conflict? I don't expect the experts to agree. It is better that they don't. There are hard problem remaining to be solved in language modeling, vision, and robotics. We need to try many approaches with powerful hardware. The network will decide who the winners are. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com singularity | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI
Lol. Calm down fella. You are going to give yourself a stroke. Eric B. Ramsay J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Few people would define the developments task as hiring hundreds of engineers to do things like write device drivers and apps for defective Chinese silicon so that little Billy's stuffed purple dinosaur with a USB cable coming out its ass can dance along with Hannah Montana music videos being streamed from YouTube with built-in DRM as a heroic last ditch effort to contain the spread of that insipid music while your email-client-and-dishwashing-machine forwards your porn collection to everyone in your address book in the background because a Russian hacker^H^H^H^H^H^H programmer might find that funny^H^H^H^H^H use --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [For those not familiar with Richard's style: once he disagrees with something he will dispute it to the bitter end in long, drawn out arguments, because nothing is more important than being right.] What's the purpose for this comment? If the people here are intelligent enough to have meaningful discussions on a difficult topic, then they will be able to sort out for themselves the styles of others. Eric B. Ramsay --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
I came across an old Discover magazine this morning with yet another article by Lanier on his rainstorm thought experiment. After reading the article it occurred to me that what he is saying may be equivalent to: Imagine a sufficiently large computer that works according to the architecture of our ordinary PC's. In the space of Operating Systems (code interpreters), we can find an operating system such that it will run the input from the rainstorm such that it appears identical to a computer running a brain. If this is true, then functionalism is not affected since we must not forget to combine program + OS. Thus the rainstorm by itself has no emergent properties. Eric B. Ramsay --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Infinitely Unlikely Coincidences [WAS Re: [singularity] AI critique by Jaron Lanier]
During the late 70's when I was at McGill, I attended a public talk given by Feynman on quantum physics. After the talk, and in answer to a question posed from a member of the audience, Feynman said something along the lines of : I have here in my pocket a prescription from my doctor that forbids me to answer questions from or get into discussions with philosophers or something like that. After spending the last couple of days reading all the links on the outrageous proposition that rocks, rainstorms or plates of spaghetti implement the mind, I now understand Feynman's sentiment. What a waste of mental energy. A line of discussion as equally fruitless as solipsism. I am in full agreement with Richard Loosemore on this one. Eric B. Ramsay Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20/02/2008, Richard Loosemore wrote: I am aware of some of those other sources for the idea: nevertheless, they are all nonsense for the same reason. I especially single out Searle: his writings on this subject are virtually worthless. I have argued with Searle to his face, and I have talked with others (Hofstadter, for example) who have also done so, and the consensus among these people is that his arguments are built on confusion. Just to be clear, this is *not* the same as Searle's Chinese Room argument, which only he seems to find convincing. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] MindForth achieves True AI functionality
I noticed that the members of the list have completely ignored this pronouncement by A.T. Murray. Is there a reason for this (for example is this person considered fringe or worse)? Eric B. Ramsay A. T. Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MindForth free open AI source code on-line at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html has become a True AI-Complete thinking mind after years of tweaking and debugging. On 22 January 2008 the AI Forthmind began to think effortlessly and almost flawlessly in loops of meandering chains of thought. Users are invited to download the AI Mind and decide for themselves if what they see is machine intelligence and thinking. The http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/m4thuser.html User Manual explains all the steps involved. MindForth is the Model-T of True AI software, roughly comparable to the state of the art in automobiles one hundred years ago in 1908. As such, the AI in Forth will not blow you away with any advanced features, but will subtly show you the most primitive display of spreading activation among concepts. The world's first publicly available True AI achieves meandering chains of thought by detouring away from incomplete ideas lacking knowledge-base data and by asking questions of the human user when the AI is unable to complete a sentence of thought. The original MindForth program has spawned http://AIMind-I.com as the first offspring in the evolution of artificial intelligence. ATM/Mentifex -- http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html http://onsingularity.com/user/mentifex - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=93036941-9e51d0
Re: [singularity] World as Simulation
Apart from all this philosophy (non-ending as it seems), Table 1. of the paper referred to at the start of this thread gives several consequences of a simulation that offer to explain what's behind current physical observations such as the upper speed limit of light, relativistic and quantum effects etc. Without worrying about whether we are a simulation of a sinmulation of a simulation etc, it would be interesting to work out all the qualitative/quantitative (?) implications of the idea and see if observations strongly or weakly support it. If the only thing we can do with the idea is discuss phiosophy then the idea is useless. Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- John G. Rose wrote: In a sim world there are many variables that can overcome other motivators so a change in the rate of gene proliferation would be difficult to predict. The agents that correctly believe that it is a simulation could say OK this is all fake, I'm going for pure pleasure with total disregard for anything else. But still too many variables to predict. In humanity there have been times in the past where societies have given credence to simulation through religious beliefs and weighted more heavily on a disregard for other groups existence. A society would say that this is all fake, we all gotta die sometime anyway so we are going to take as much as we can from other tribes and decimate them for sport. Not saying this was always the reason for intertribal warfare but sometimes it was. The reason we have war is because the warlike tribes annihilated the peaceful ones. Evolution favors a brain structure where young males are predisposed to group loyalty (gangs or armies), and take an interest in competition and weapons technology (e.g. the difference in the types of video games played by boys and girls). It has nothing to do with belief in simulation. Cultures that believed the world was simulated probably killed themselves, not others. That is why we believe the world is real. Simulation is a new word. In this context, let's use an old word. Maya. Have the Buddhist countries and societies gone away? And let's use an old word for reality. Heaven. Have the Christian countries and societies gone away? Perhaps you need to rethink your suppositions. But the problem is in the question of what really is a simulation? For the agents constrained, it doesn't matter they still have to live in it - feel pain, fight for food, get along with other agents... Moving an agent from one simulation to the next though, that gives it some sort of extra properties... It is unlikely that any knowledge you now have would be useful in another simulation. Knowledge is only useful if it helps propagate your DNA. -- Matt Mahoney, [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/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=85267781-e99d20
Re: [singularity] World as Simulation
Matt: I would prefer to analyse something simple such as the double slit experiment. If you do an experiment to see which slit the photon goes through you get an accumulation of photons in equal numbers behind each slit. If you don't make an effort to see which slit the photons go through, you get an interference pattern. What, if this is all a simulation, is requiring the simulation to behave this way? I assume that this is a forced result based on the assumption of using only as much computation as needed to perform the simulation. A radioactive atom decays when it decays. All we can say with any certainty is what it's probability distribution in time is for decay. Why is that? Why would a simulation not maintain local causality (EPR paradox)? I think it would be far more interesting (and meaningful) if the simulation hypothesis could provide a basis for these observations. Eric B. Ramsay Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Eric B. Ramsay wrote: Apart from all this philosophy (non-ending as it seems), Table 1. of the paper referred to at the start of this thread gives several consequences of a simulation that offer to explain what's behind current physical observations such as the upper speed limit of light, relativistic and quantum effects etc. Without worrying about whether we are a simulation of a sinmulation of a simulation etc, it would be interesting to work out all the qualitative/quantitative (?) implications of the idea and see if observations strongly or weakly support it. If the only thing we can do with the idea is discuss phiosophy then the idea is useless. There is plenty of physical evidence that the universe is simulated by a finite state machine or a Turing machine. 1. The universe has finite size, mass, and age, and resolution. Taken together, the universe has a finite state, expressible in approximately hG/c^5T^2 = 1.55 x 10^122 bits ~ 2^406 bits (where h is Planck's constant, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T is the age of the universe. By coincidence, if the universe is divided into 2^406 regions, each is the size of a proton or neutron. This is a coincidence because h, G, c, and T don't depend on the properties of any particles). 2. A finite state machine cannot model itself deterministically. This is consistent with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. 3. The observation that Occam's Razor works in practice is consistent with the AIXI model of a computable environment. 4. The complexity of the universe is consistent with the simplest possible algorithm: enumerate all Turing machines until a universe supporting intelligent life is found. The fastest way to execute this algorithm is to run each of the 2^n universes with complexity n bits for 2^n steps. The complexity of the free parameters in many string theories plus general relativity is a few hundred bits (maybe 406). -- Matt Mahoney, [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/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=85331123-9c8ee9
Re: [singularity] World as Simulation
Matt: I understand your point #2 but it is a grand sweep without any detail. To give you an example of what I have in mind, let's consider the photon double slit experiment again. You have a photon emitter operating at very low intensity such that photons come out singly. There is an average rate for the photons emitted but the point in time for their emission is random - this then introduces the non-deterministic feature of nature. At this point, why doesn't the emitted photon just go through one or the other slit? Instead, what we find is that the photon goes through a specific slit if someone is watching but if no one is watching it somehow goes through both slits and performs a self interference leading to the interference pattern observed. Now my question: can it be demonstrated that this scenario of two alternate behaviour strategies minimizes computation resources (or whatever Occam's razor requires) and so is a necessary feature of a simulation? We already have a probability event at the very start when the photon was emitted, how does the other behaviour fit with the simulation scheme? Wouldn't it be computationally simpler to just follow the photon like a billiard ball instead of two variations in behaviour with observers thrown in? Eric B. Ramsay Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Eric B. Ramsay wrote: Matt: I would prefer to analyse something simple such as the double slit experiment. If you do an experiment to see which slit the photon goes through you get an accumulation of photons in equal numbers behind each slit. If you don't make an effort to see which slit the photons go through, you get an interference pattern. What, if this is all a simulation, is requiring the simulation to behave this way? I assume that this is a forced result based on the assumption of using only as much computation as needed to perform the simulation. A radioactive atom decays when it decays. All we can say with any certainty is what it's probability distribution in time is for decay. Why is that? Why would a simulation not maintain local causality (EPR paradox)? I think it would be far more interesting (and meaningful) if the simulation hypothesis could provide a basis for these observations. This is what I addressed in point #2. A finite state simulation forces any agents in the simulation to use a probabilistic model of their universe, because an exact model would require as much memory as is used for the simulation itself. Quantum mechanics is an example of a probabilistic model. The fact that the laws of physics prevent you from making certain predictions is what suggests the universe is simulated, not the details of what you can't predict. If the universe were simulated by a computer with infinite memory (e.g. real valued registers), then the laws of physics might have been deterministic, allowing us to build infinite memory computers that could make exact predictions even if the universe had infinite size, mass, age, and resolution. However, this does not appear to be the case. A finite simulation does not require any particular laws of physics. For all you know, tomorrow gravity may cease to exist, or time will suddenly have 17 dimensions. However, the AIXI model makes this unlikely because unexpected changes like this would require a simulation with greater algorithmic complexity. This is not a proof that the universe is a simulation, nor are any of my other points. I don't believe that a proof is possible. Eric B. Ramsay Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Eric B. Ramsay wrote: Apart from all this philosophy (non-ending as it seems), Table 1. of the paper referred to at the start of this thread gives several consequences of a simulation that offer to explain what's behind current physical observations such as the upper speed limit of light, relativistic and quantum effects etc. Without worrying about whether we are a simulation of a sinmulation of a simulation etc, it would be interesting to work out all the qualitative/quantitative (?) implications of the idea and see if observations strongly or weakly support it. If the only thing we can do with the idea is discuss phiosophy then the idea is useless. There is plenty of physical evidence that the universe is simulated by a finite state machine or a Turing machine. 1. The universe has finite size, mass, and age, and resolution. Taken together, the universe has a finite state, expressible in approximately hG/c^5T^2 = 1.55 x 10^122 bits ~ 2^406 bits (where h is Planck's constant, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T is the age of the universe. By coincidence, if the universe is divided into 2^406 regions, each is the size of a proton or neutron. This is a coincidence because h, G, c, and T don't depend on the properties of any particles). 2. A finite state machine cannot model itself deterministically. This is consistent with the probabilistic
[singularity] World as Simulation
Some of you may be interested in this link (if you haven't already seen the article). http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337 Eric B. Ramsay - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=81675143-ace197
Re: Machine Motivation Gets Distorted Again [WAS Re: [singularity] Help get the 400k SIAI matching challenge on DIGG's front page]
I have a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and I don't understand half of what is said on this board (as well as the AGI board). I appreciate all simplifications that anyone cares to make. Eric B. Ramsay Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shane, Thankyou for being patronizing. Some of us do understand the AIXI work in enough depth to make valid criticism. The problem is that you do not understand the criticism well enough to address it. Richard Loosemore. Richard, While you do have the math background to understand the AIXI material, plenty of list members don't. I think Shane's less-technical summary may be helpful in helping those with less math background to understand what AIXI and related ideas are all about. Having talked to Shane about AGI a fair bit, I venture to suggest he does understand your criticism, but just doesn't agree with all of it (I note that I don't fully agree with either you or Shane, but I think I do understand both of your positions reasonably well.) -- 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/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604user_secret=8eb45b07
