Alright, one last message for the night.
I don't actually consider myself to be pessimistic about AI. I believe that
strong AI can and will (bar some global catastrophe) develop. It's the
wrong-headed approaches through the history of AI that have hobbled the
whole enterprise. The 1970's ha
Hank,
Do you have a personal "understanding/design of AGI and intelligence in
general" that predicts a soon-to-come singularity? Do you have theories or a
design for an AGI?
John
Hank Conn wrote:
It has been my experience that one's expectations on the future of
AI/Singularity is di
I see a singularity, if it occurs at all, to be at least a hundred years
out.
To use Kurzweil's language, you're not thinking in "exponential time" ;-)
The artificial intelligence problem is much more difficult
than most people imagine it to be.
"Most people" have close to zero basis to eve
I'm a little bit familiar with Piaget, and I'm guessing that the "formal
stage of development" is something on the level of a four-year-old child.
If we could create an AI system with the intelligence of a four-year-old
child, then we would have a huge breakthrough, far beyond anything done so
Your message appeared at first to be rambling and incoherent, but I see that
that's probably because English is a second language for you. But that's
not a problem if your ideas are solid.
Yes, there is "fake artificial intelligence" out there, systems that are
proposed to be intelligent but
--- Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Maohoney wrote:
> > My point is that when AGI is built, you will have to trust its answers
> based
> > on the correctness of the learning algorithms, and not by examining the
> > internal data or tracing the reasoning.
>
> Agreed...
>
> >I beli
--- John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, I have to say this.
>
> I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I
> am working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but
> from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slo
--- Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matt> --- Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> On 12/1/06, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "goals
> >> of humanity", like all other species, was determined by >
> >> evolution. > It is to propagate the species.
> >>
> >>
> >>
BillK wrote:
On 12/5/06, Charles D Hixson wrote:
BillK wrote:
> ...
>
No time inversion intended. What I intended to say was that most
(all?) decisions are made subconsciously before the conscious mind
starts its reason / excuse generation process. The conscious mind
pretending to weigh vario
On 12/5/06, Charles D Hixson wrote:
BillK wrote:
> ...
>
> Every time someone (subconsciously) decides to do something, their
> brain presents a list of reasons to go ahead. The reasons against are
> ignored, or weighted down to be less preferred. This applies to
> everything from deciding to get
See http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=44 and
http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/203-AI/Lecture/AGI.htm
Pei
On 12/5/06, Andrii (lOkadin) Zvorygin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there anywhere I could find a list and description of these
different kinds of AI?.a'u(interest) I'm sure I
BillK wrote:
...
Every time someone (subconsciously) decides to do something, their
brain presents a list of reasons to go ahead. The reasons against are
ignored, or weighted down to be less preferred. This applies to
everything from deciding to get a new job to deciding to sleep with
your best
On 12/5/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
>> If, on the other hand, all we have is the present approach to AI then I
>> tend to agree with you John: ludicrous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Loosemore
>
> IMO it is not sensible to speak of "the present approach to AI"
Ben Goertzel wrote:
...
According to my understanding of the Novamente design and artificial
developmental psychology, the breakthrough from slow to fast
incremental progress will occur when the AGI system reaches Piaget's
"formal stage" of development:
http://www.agiri.org/wiki/index.php/Formal
On 12/5/06, Richard Loosemore wrote:
There are so few people who speak up against the conventional attitude
to the [rational AI/irrational humans] idea, it is such a relief to hear
any of them speak out.
I don't know yet if I buy everything Minsky says, but I know I agree
with the spirit of it.
"Ummm... perhaps your skepticism has more to do with the inadequacies
of **your own** AGI design than with the limitations of AGI designs in
general?"
It has been my experience that one's expectations on the future of
AI/Singularity is directly dependent upon one's understanding/design of AGI
and
Yes, I could not find a decent definition of irrational at first:
Amending my statements now...
Using the Wiki basis below: the term is used to describe thinking and actions
which are, or appear to be, less useful or logical than the rational
alternatives.
I would remove the 'logical' portion o
>> You have hinted around it, but I would go one step further and say that
>> Emotion is NOT contrary to logic.
:-) I thought that my last statement that " is equally likely to be
congruent with " was a lot more than a hint (unless congruent
doesn't mean "not contrary" like I think/thought it d
Ben Goertzel wrote:
If, on the other hand, all we have is the present approach to AI then I
tend to agree with you John: ludicrous.
Richard Loosemore
IMO it is not sensible to speak of "the present approach to AI"
There are a lot of approaches out there... not an orthodoxy by any means...
Mark Waser wrote:
Talk about fortuitous timing . . . . here's a link on Marvin Minsky's
latest about emotions and rational thought
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/12/04/minsky_talks_about_life_love_in_the_age_of_artificial_intelligence/
The most relevant line to
I didnt suggest modeling the non-ration part of it, was just responding to the
other implication that we needed the non-rational part to model AGI as human.
I believe there is very little non-rationality.
>This is where Ben and I are sort of having a debate. I agree with him that
>the >brain
Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are
> you saying that the more excuses we can think up, the more intelligent
> we are? (Actually there might be something in that!).
Sure. Absolutely. I'm perfectly willing to contend that it takes
intelligence to come up with excuses and that more intell
> Now about building a rational vs non-rational AGI, how would you go about
> modeling a non-rational part of it? Short of a random number generator?
Why would you want to build a non-rational AGI? It seems like a *really* bad
idea. I think I'm missing your point here.
> For the most part we
If, on the other hand, all we have is the present approach to AI then I
tend to agree with you John: ludicrous.
Richard Loosemore
IMO it is not sensible to speak of "the present approach to AI"
There are a lot of approaches out there... not an orthodoxy by any means...
-- Ben G
-
Thi
John Scanlon wrote:
Alright, I have to say this.
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even
occur. I am working very hard at developing real artificial general
intelligence, but from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will
be slow and incremental. The idea t
BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/4/06, Mark Waser wrote:
>
> Explaining our actions is the reflective part of our minds evaluating the
> reflexive part of our mind. The reflexive part of our minds, though,
> operates analogously to a machine running on compiled code with the
> compilation
Talk about fortuitous timing . . . . here's a link on Marvin Minsky's latest
about emotions and rational thought
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/12/04/minsky_talks_about_life_love_in_the_age_of_artificial_intelligence/
The most relevant line to our conversation is "
Are
you saying that the more excuses we can think up, the more intelligent
we are? (Actually there might be something in that!).
Sure. Absolutely. I'm perfectly willing to contend that it takes
intelligence to come up with excuses and that more intelligent people can
come up with more and be
On 12/5/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your reasoning is getting surreal.
You seem to have a real difficulty in admitting that humans behave
irrationally for a lot (most?) of the time. Don't you read newspapers?
You can redefine rationality if you like to say that all the crazy
people are
John,
On 12/5/06, John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I
am working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but
from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slow and
incremental. The
On 12/4/06, Mark Waser wrote:
Explaining our actions is the reflective part of our minds evaluating the
reflexive part of our mind. The reflexive part of our minds, though,
operates analogously to a machine running on compiled code with the
compilation of code being largely *not* under the con
On 12/5/06, John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alright, I have to say this.
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I
am working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but
from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slo
Alright, I have to say this.
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I am
working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but from
what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slow and incremental. The
idea that very soon we can cr
33 matches
Mail list logo
