RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
> From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The simulations can't loop because the simulator needs at least as > much > > > memory > > > as the machine being simulated. > > > > > > > You're making assumptions when you say that. Outside of a particular > > simulation we don't know the rules. If this universe is simulated the > > simulator's reality could be so drastically and unimaginably different > from > > the laws in this universe. Also there could be data busses between > > simulations and the simulations could intersect or, a simulation may > break > > the constraints of its contained simulation somehow and tunnel out. > > I am assuming finite memory. For the universe we observe, the > Bekenstein > bound of the Hubble radius is 2pi^2 T^2 c^5/hG = 2.91 x 10^122 bits. (T > = age > of the universe = 13.7 billion years, c = speed of light, h = Planck's > constant, G = gravitational constant). There is not enough material in > the > universe to build a larger memory. However, a universe up the hierarchy > might > be simulated by a Turing machine with infinite memory or by a more > powerful > machine such as one with real-valued registers. In that case the > restriction > does not apply. For example, a real-valued function can contain nested > copies > of itself infinitely deep. > > That's assuming that our whole universe is simulated, not just portions of it. Also Turing machines with real valued registers would still be limited by the same universal constants that the Turing machine is running in? IOW real valued registers are only theoretically infinitely subdividable not realistically. And then simulation characteristics - what exactly is implied by simulation, is everything precalculated and rendered? The characteristics may be undeterminable since the simulation data bus probably IMO is running at some speed faster than c. John --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course what I imagine emerging from the Internet bears little > resemblance > > to Novamente. It is simply too big to invest in directly, but it will > present > > many opportunities. > > But the emergence of superhuman AGI's like a Novamente may eventually > become, > will both dramatically alter the nature of, and dramatically reduce > the cost of, "global > brains" such as you envision... Yes, like the difference between writing a web browser and defining the HTTP protocol, each costing a tiny fraction of the value of the Internet but with a huge impact on its outcome. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How do you resolve disagreements? This is a problem for all large databases and multiuser AI systems. In my design, messages are identified by source (not necessarily a person) and a timestamp. The network economy rewards those sources that provide the most useful (correct) information. There is an incentive to produce reputation managers which rank other sources and forward messages from highly ranked sources, because those managers themselves become highly ranked. Google handles this problem by using its PageRank algorithm, although I believe that better (not perfect) solutions are possible in a distributed, competitive environment. I believe that these solutions will be deployed early and be the subject of intense research because it is such a large problem. The network I described is vulnerable to spammers and hackers deliberately injecting false or forged information. The protocol can only do so much. I designed it to minimize these risks. Thus, there is no procedure to delete or alter messages once they are posted. Message recipients are responsible for verifying the identity and timestamps of senders and for filtering spam and malicious messages at risk of having their own reputations lowered if they fail. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The simulations can't loop because the simulator needs at least as much > > memory > > as the machine being simulated. > > > > You're making assumptions when you say that. Outside of a particular > simulation we don't know the rules. If this universe is simulated the > simulator's reality could be so drastically and unimaginably different from > the laws in this universe. Also there could be data busses between > simulations and the simulations could intersect or, a simulation may break > the constraints of its contained simulation somehow and tunnel out. I am assuming finite memory. For the universe we observe, the Bekenstein bound of the Hubble radius is 2pi^2 T^2 c^5/hG = 2.91 x 10^122 bits. (T = age of the universe = 13.7 billion years, c = speed of light, h = Planck's constant, G = gravitational constant). There is not enough material in the universe to build a larger memory. However, a universe up the hierarchy might be simulated by a Turing machine with infinite memory or by a more powerful machine such as one with real-valued registers. In that case the restriction does not apply. For example, a real-valued function can contain nested copies of itself infinitely deep. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
> From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or > even > > > in a > > > single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate > all > > > Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with > intelligent > > > life. > > > > > > > What if that nest of simulations loop around somehow? What was that > idea > > where there is this new advanced microscope that can see smaller than > ever > > before and you look into it and see an image of yourself looking into > it... > > The simulations can't loop because the simulator needs at least as much > memory > as the machine being simulated. > You're making assumptions when you say that. Outside of a particular simulation we don't know the rules. If this universe is simulated the simulator's reality could be so drastically and unimaginably different from the laws in this universe. Also there could be data busses between simulations and the simulations could intersect or, a simulation may break the constraints of its contained simulation somehow and tunnel out. John --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
As described in my Texai roadmap, it might be possible to achieve AGI using primarily volunteer, no-cost human labor. A precondition is a human/computer interface that can intelligently acquire knowledge and skills, and is compelling enough for early adopters to use it. If the profit motive is removed (e.g. open source / open content) then on one hand volunteerism is encouraged, and on the other hand barriers to widespread utilitization are reduced (e.g. like Wikipedia). For me the tipping point will be the demonstration of an English dialog system that intelligent seeks to acquire more knowledge and skills, and is freely deployable in a distributed fashion to a multitude of peer-users as a virtual applicance. I believe, without any supporting evidence beyond my own limited experience in our field, that only a small kernel of hand-written code is required to set this off. What that code might be is the question! For WIkipedia, it is MediaWiki. -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: Eric B. Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 9:56:58 PM Subject: 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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
Matt: 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? MT: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? Matt I don't expect the experts to agree. That's the deadly serious criticism (among many others) of the fantasy of a mushrooming database of knowledge. How do you test the supposed "facts" resulting from your data mining? How do you resolve disagreements? How do you know when to disagree with the experts? How do you know what is truth and what fantasy? What would your superAGI make from these archives about the future of AGI, & the many problems of AGI? How would it deal with 40 or however many participants on this forum, with their 80 plus opinions on everything? How would it resolve the many thousands of different opinions on the Internet on issues like free will/determinism or global warming or Iraq or how to seduce women or the role of DNA or where to invest right now? This -how you test knowledge - is a totally unsolved problem, just as every other problem in AGI is totally unsolved. Until there's the merest glimpse of a solution of just one problem, fantasying about what shape a superAGI will or should take is not serious, but a total waste of precious time that could be spent trying to solve those problems. --- 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=4007604&id_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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http:/
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
> Of course what I imagine emerging from the Internet bears little resemblance > to Novamente. It is simply too big to invest in directly, but it will > present > many opportunities. But the emergence of superhuman AGI's like a Novamente may eventually become, will both dramatically alter the nature of, and dramatically reduce the cost of, "global brains" such as you envision... ben g --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- "Eric B. Ramsay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. I am serious about the $1 quadrillion price tag, which is the low end of my estimate. The value of the Internet is now in the tens of trillions and doubling every few years. The value of AGI will be a very large fraction of the world economy, currently US $66 trillion per year and growing at 5% per year. Of course what I imagine emerging from the Internet bears little resemblance to Novamente. It is simply too big to invest in directly, but it will present many opportunities. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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 | 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/?member_id=4007604&id_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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or even > > in a > > single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate all > > Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with intelligent > > life. > > > > What if that nest of simulations loop around somehow? What was that idea > where there is this new advanced microscope that can see smaller than ever > before and you look into it and see an image of yourself looking into it... The simulations can't loop because the simulator needs at least as much memory as the machine being simulated. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
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. You know, for once I completely agree with you. Richard Loosemore --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
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. Another interesting question here is: on how many occasions are the majority of experts in any given field, wrong? I don't begin to know how to start assessing that. But there's a basic truth - which is that they are often wrong and in crucial areas - like politics, economics, investment, medicine etc etc. You guys don't seem to have understood one of the basic functions of Google, which is precisely to enable you to get a 2nd, 3rd etc opinion - and NOT have to rely on the experts! --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
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. 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? --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
> > There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or even > in a > single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate all > Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with intelligent > life. > What if that nest of simulations loop around somehow? What was that idea where there is this new advanced microscope that can see smaller than ever before and you look into it and see an image of yourself looking into it... John --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
Matt Mahoney writes:> > Super-google is nifty, but I don't see how it is AGI.> > Because 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. All of this can be done with existing technology> and a lot of hard work. Ok. I have some doubts personally that lots of narrow intelligences add up to general intelligence, but it seems as reasonable as other ideas out there. I'd certainly pay to use it... with the explosion of documents on the web Google-as-it-exists gets worse and worse at giving me results that make me happy. I've even (gasp) started trying other search sites. Ask.com is pretty good, often better than google. --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > You won't see a singularity. As I explain in > > http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html an intelligent agent (you) > > is not capable of recognizing agents of significantly greater > > intelligence. We don't know whether a singularity has already occurred > > and the world we observe is the result. It is consistent with the > > possibility, e.g. it is finite, Turing computable, and obeys Occam's > > Razor (AIXI). > > > > You should be able to see it coming. That's how people like Kurzweil make > their estimations based on technological rates of change. When it gets > really close though then you can only imagine how it will unfold. Yes, we can see it coming, so by the anthropic principle, the singularity must always be in the future. > If a singularity has already occurred how do you know how many there have > been? Has somebody worked out the math on this? And if this universe is a > simulation is that simulation running within another simulation? Is there a > simulation forefront or is it just one simulation within another ad > infinitum? Simulation raises too many questions. Seems like simulation and > singularity would be easier to keep separate, except for uploading. But then > the whole concept of uploading is just ...too.. confusing... unless our > minds are complex systems like Richard Loosemore proposes and uploading > would only be a sort of echo of the original. There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or even in a single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate all Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with intelligent life. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Mahoney writes:> As for AGI research, I believe the most viable > path is a distributed> architecture that uses the billions of human > brains and computers> already on the Internet. What is needed is an > infrastructure that> routes information to the right experts and an > economy that rewards> intelligence and friendliness. I described one > such architecture in> http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html It differs > significantly from the> usual approach of trying to replicate a human > mind. I don't believe> that one person or a small group can solve the > AGI problem faster than> the billions of people on the Internet are > already doing. > I'm not sure I understand this. Although a system that can respond > well to commands of the following form: > > "Show me an existing document that best answers the question 'X'" > > is certainly useful, it is hardly 'general' in any sense we usually > mean. I would think a 'general' intelligence should be able to take > a shot at answering: > > "Why are so many streets named after trees?" > or > "If the New York Giants played cricket against the New York Yankees, > who would probably win?" > or > "Here are the results of some diagnostic tests. How likely is it > that the patient has cancer? What test should we do next?" > or > "Design me a stable helicopter with the rotors on the bottom instead > of the top" > > Super-google is nifty, but I don't see how it is AGI. Because 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. All of this can be done with existing technology and a lot of hard work. The work will be done because there is an incentive to do it and because the AGI (in the system, not its components) is so valuable. AGI will be an extension of the Internet that nobody planned, nobody built, and nobody owns. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
> From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You won't see a singularity. As I explain in > http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html an intelligent agent (you) > is not capable of recognizing agents of significantly greater > intelligence. We don't know whether a singularity has already occurred > and the world we observe is the result. It is consistent with the > possibility, e.g. it is finite, Turing computable, and obeys Occam's > Razor (AIXI). > You should be able to see it coming. That's how people like Kurzweil make their estimations based on technological rates of change. When it gets really close though then you can only imagine how it will unfold. If a singularity has already occurred how do you know how many there have been? Has somebody worked out the math on this? And if this universe is a simulation is that simulation running within another simulation? Is there a simulation forefront or is it just one simulation within another ad infinitum? Simulation raises too many questions. Seems like simulation and singularity would be easier to keep separate, except for uploading. But then the whole concept of uploading is just ...too.. confusing... unless our minds are complex systems like Richard Loosemore proposes and uploading would only be a sort of echo of the original. John --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
Matt Mahoney writes:> As for AGI research, I believe the most viable path is a distributed> architecture that uses the billions of human brains and computers> already on the Internet. What is needed is an infrastructure that> routes information to the right experts and an economy that rewards> intelligence and friendliness. I described one such architecture in> http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html It differs significantly from the> usual approach of trying to replicate a human mind. I don't believe> that one person or a small group can solve the AGI problem faster than> the billions of people on the Internet are already doing. I'm not sure I understand this. Although a system that can respond well to commands of the following form: "Show me an existing document that best answers the question 'X'" is certainly useful, it is hardly 'general' in any sense we usually mean. I would think a 'general' intelligence should be able to take a shot at answering: "Why are so many streets named after trees?" or "If the New York Giants played cricket against the New York Yankees, who would probably win?" or "Here are the results of some diagnostic tests. How likely is it that the patient has cancer? What test should we do next?" or "Design me a stable helicopter with the rotors on the bottom instead of the top" Super-google is nifty, but I don't see how it is AGI. --- 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=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Promoting AGI (RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI)
--- "Eric B. Ramsay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "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!). You won't see a singularity. As I explain in http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html an intelligent agent (you) is not capable of recognizing agents of significantly greater intelligence. We don't know whether a singularity has already occurred and the world we observe is the result. It is consistent with the possibility, e.g. it is finite, Turing computable, and obeys Occam's Razor (AIXI). As for AGI research, I believe the most viable path is a distributed architecture that uses the billions of human brains and computers already on the Internet. What is needed is an infrastructure that routes information to the right experts and an economy that rewards intelligence and friendliness. I described one such architecture in http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html It differs significantly from the usual approach of trying to replicate a human mind. I don't believe that one person or a small group can solve the AGI problem faster than the billions of people on the Internet are already doing. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
