There's a good chance this topic has been discussed before, so feel
free to point the way if that's the case. It's certainly been touched
on since I joined the list, but I wanted to break it out for its own
sake of discussion.
Background:
There is a contest that implements the Turing Test for
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:12:16PM -0500, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
Woops, not what I meant. You wondered if I were thinking about the brain
because I acted as if I had a processor per concept. I'm just taking as a
point of departure that (a) we know intelligence can be done in 1e16 ops,
J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:34, Ben Goertzel wrote:
J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:33, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I am confused about whether you are proposing a brain model or an AGI
design.
I'm working with a brain model
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:30, Eugen Leitl wrote:
We don't. Intelligence looks like 10^23 ops/s on 10^17 sites country.
Pulling numbers out of /dev/ass is easy; anyone can do it.
In my previous msg that one referred to, I quoted my figures as being from
Kurzweil Moravec respectively. After
Chuck,
Regarding AGI tests, this is something I've thought about a bit because
some people from the nonprofit world have told me they felt it would be
relatively easy to raise money for some kind of AGI Prize, similar to the
Hutter Prize or the Methuselah Mouse Prize.
However, I thought about
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:30:20AM -0500, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
In my previous msg that one referred to, I quoted my figures as being from
Kurzweil Moravec respectively. After I read your 652-page book justifying
Would you take 562 pages as well?
It is a trite point, but I can't help repeating that, given how very
little we know about the
brain's deeper workings, these estimates of the brain's computational
and memory capability
are all kinda semi-useless...
I think that brain-inspired AGI may become very interesting in 5-20
years
Do you think I do that for a new language?
Josh I'm pretty sure that I at least do it one word at a time. Last
Josh year I drove all the way across Austria and halfway back before
Josh I finally realized that those signs I kept seeing: Einbahn,
Josh meant One Way.
Josh Eric Drexler tells the
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:12:55AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote:
It is a trite point, but I can't help repeating that, given how very
little we know about the
brain's deeper workings, these estimates of the brain's computational
Not to belabor the point, but the objections about how little we
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:12:55AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote:
It is a trite point, but I can't help repeating that, given how very
little we know about the
brain's deeper workings, these estimates of the brain's computational
Not to belabor the point, but the
On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Kevin Peterson wrote:
I don't know, though. It might be interesting to reformulate things in
terms of interacting with a virtual world over the same channels
humans do. Text chatting is just too narrow a channel to tell much.
When an AI can reach max level in
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 08:05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
You might find the authors have a bit more credibility than
Moravec, and especially such a notorious luminary like Kurzweil
http://www.kurzweiltech.com/aboutray.html
Besides writing books, Kurzweil builds systems that work.
I'm not
an AI system consisting of many modules has to have one canonical format for
representing content WHY?
In a modern operating system that consists of a huge number of component parts,
there is no one data representation. There must be a consistent interface
between the modules for them to work
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:43:01PM -0500, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
Besides writing books, Kurzweil builds systems that work.
No arguing with that (though his system-building seems to
be all in the past, and self-promotion very much in the
present), but he doesn't do AI that works and
On 3/14/07, David Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an AI system consisting of many modules has to have one canonical format
for representing content WHY?
Because for A to talk to B, they have to use a
language/format/representation that both of them understand. By far the most
efficient way
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 06:44, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Here is a brain question though: In your approach, the recursive
build-up of patterns-among-patterns-
...-among-patterns seems to rely on the ability to treat transformations
(e.g. matrices, or perhaps
nonlinear transformations
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:30, Eugen Leitl wrote:
The reason Drexler proposed scaling down the Difference Engine is not
because he considered them practical, but because they're easy to analyze.
But more to the point to put a LOWER bound on computational capacity of
nanosystems.
I'm not
In my thinking I've dropped the neural inspiration and everything is in terms
of pure math. Each module (probably better drop that term, it's ambiguous and
confusing: let's use IAM, interpolating associative memory, instead), each
IAM is simply a relation, a set of points in N-space, with an
- Original Message -
From: Russell Wallace
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Logical representation
On 3/14/07, David Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an AI system consisting of many modules has to have one canonical
I think that our minds have many systems that, at least at the higher levels,
have different data representations. These systems in our minds seem to
communicate with each other in words. The words aren't totally appropriate in
all domains (like Math) but they do to communicate the big ideas.
On 3/14/07, David Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that our minds have many systems that, at least at the higher
levels, have different data representations. These systems in our minds
seem to communicate with each other in words.
I don't think it's as simple as that, but in any case
In Prologesque syntax, let points be defined as
p(X, Y, Z, ...).for all points (X, Y, Z, ...) in that space. For
concreteness, let's use
p(X,Y,Z).
Now in Prolog, we can use p as a function of X and Y by calling, e.g.
p(17, 54, Z) which will return with Z bound to the result. Thinking
OK...
In Prologesque syntax, let points be defined as
p(X, Y, Z, ...).for all points (X, Y, Z, ...) in that space. For
concreteness, let's use
p(X,Y,Z).
Now in Prolog, we can use p as a function of X and Y by calling, e.g.
p(17, 54, Z) which will return with Z bound to the result.
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:00, Ben Goertzel wrote:
...
Then, we can submit a query of the form
m(specific state, specific input, variable output, variable next state)
= m(S,I,$O,$NS)
using $ to precede variables
So far, so good. The relation is simply being used to store the table
24 matches
Mail list logo
