Josh: People learn best when they recieve simple, progressive, unambiguous
instructions or examples. This is why young humans imprint on
parent-figures,
have heroes, and so forth -- heuristics to cut the clutter and reduce
conflict of examples. An AGI that was trying to learn from the Internet f
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Say, each functional concept (a bit in total amount of memory) is
> represented by R synapses and M neurons. When certain pattern of concepts is
> observed, it creates a repeatable sequence of events. Say, pattern is one
> concept being followed by an
On 20/10/2007, Robert Wensman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems your question stated on the meta discussion level, since that you
> ask for a reason why a there are two different beliefs.
>
> I can only answer for myself, but to me some form of evolutionary learning
> is essential to AGI. Actua
It seems your question stated on the meta discussion level, since that you
ask for a reason why a there are two different beliefs.
I can only answer for myself, but to me some form of evolutionary learning
is essential to AGI. Actually, I define intelligence to be "an Eco-system of
ideas that comp
On Friday 19 October 2007 06:34:08 pm, Mike Tintner wrote:
> In fact, there is an important, distinctive point here. AI/AGI machines may
> be "uncertain," (usually quantifiably so), about how to learn an activity.
> Humans are, to some extent, fundamentally "confused." We, typically, don't
>
Edward,
I'm sorry for obscurity of my message. I tried to omit some of the
background that seemed irrelevant, but probably it isn't. I'll try to
describe my point more systematically.
I assume the following low-level model of brain operation (it's more about
terminology needed to communicate intu
>
>
> I largely agree. It's worth pointing out that Carnot published
> "Reflections on
> the Motive Power of Fire" and established the science of thermodynamics
> more
> than a century after the first working steam engines were built.
>
> That said, I opine that an intuitive grasp of some of the im
Not quite sure why you responded quite so virulently.
In fact, there is an important, distinctive point here. AI/AGI machines may
be "uncertain," (usually quantifiably so), about how to learn an activity.
Humans are, to some extent, fundamentally "confused." We, typically, don't
just watch a
On Friday 19 October 2007 03:32:46 pm, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
> ... my strong feeling is that we can progress straight to
> powerful AGI right now without first having to do anything like
>
> -- define a useful, rigorous definition of intelligence
> -- define a pragmatic IQ test for AGI's
I lar
There are different routes to AGI.
"Development is a very expensive and time-consuming way to find out what we
don't know."
Knowing what we are trying to create could potentially help to find easier
ways of creating it. Could there be an easier way? Maybe a self-modifying
codebase that ta
--- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to understand what intelligence is at its smallest definable
> level, mathematically. What is the minimalistic intelligence machine? Are
> there non intelligent entities that need to be combined to form
> intelligence? What exactly is it?
> We may be misinterpreting each other. What I mean by learning being
> necessary for intelligence is that a system that cannot learn is not
> intelligent. Unless you posit some omnipotent, omniscient entity. Not
> that a system must learn before it becomes intelligent.
>
> > What is the minimal i
Just to reiterate my opinion: I think all this theorizing about definitions
and tests and so forth is interesting, but not necessary at all for the
creation of AGI. Any more than, say, the philosophy of quantum mechanics
is necessary for building lasers or semiconductors or SQUIDS.
Of course phil
On 19/10/2007, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: William Pearson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
> >
> > I do not think such things are possible. Any problem that we know
> > about and can define, can be solved with a giant look up table, or
> > mo
> From: William Pearson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [agi] An AGI Test/Prize
>
> I do not think such things are possible. Any problem that we know
> about and can define, can be solved with a giant look up table, or
> more realistically, calculated by an unlearning TM. Unless you are o
I don't know if an AGI level entity needs to even know that it exists. It
could just know as much about everything except itself. Problems arise when
it starts being concerned with its own survival. Self survival is very
evolutionary as animals need to keep themselves alive to reproduce. We could
t
On Friday 19 October 2007 01:30:43 pm, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Josh: An AGI needs to be able to watch someone doing something and produce a
> program such that it can now do the same thing.
>
> Sounds neat and tidy. But that's not the way the human mind does it.
A vacuous statement, since I state
On 19/10/2007, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that there really needs to be more very specifically defined
> quantitative measures of intelligence. If there were questions that could be
> asked of an AGI that would require x units of intelligence to solve
> otherwise they would b
Josh: An AGI needs to be able to watch someone doing something and produce a
program
such that it can now do the same thing.
Sounds neat and tidy. But that's not the way the human mind does it. We
start from ignorance and confusion about how to perform any given skill/
activity - and while we
Well, one problem is that the current mathematical definition of general
intelligence
is exactly that -- a definition of totally general intelligence, which is
unachievable
by any finite-resources AGI system...
On the other hand, IQ tests and such measure domain-specific capabiities as
much
as gen
John: >I think that there really needs to be more very specifically defined
quantitative measures of intelligence. ...Other qualities like creativity
and imagination would need to be
measured in other ways.
The only kind of intelligence you can measure with any precision is narrow
AI - conv
Josh,
Great post. Warrants being read multiple times.
You said.
JOSH>> I'm working on a formalism that unifies a very high-level
programming language (whose own code is a basic datatype, as in lisp),
spreading-activation semantic-net-like representational structures, and
subsumption-style real-
I think that there really needs to be more very specifically defined
quantitative measures of intelligence. If there were questions that could be
asked of an AGI that would require x units of intelligence to solve
otherwise they would be unsolvable. I know that this is a hopeless foray on
this list
In case anyone else is interested, here are my own responses to these
questions. Thanks to all who answered ...
> 1. What is the single biggest technical gap between current AI and AGI?
(e.g.
> we need a way to do X or we just need more development of Y or we have the
> ideas, just need hardw
Thanks for the information. Me and a friend came up with the exact same idea
for NetFlix, along with some tweaks and were have nice results, too. A shame
that our other people came up with the exact same idea :)
I think that the main reason that this idea is so intuitive is that you can
imagine it
In response to Vladimir Nesovs Fri 10/19/2007 5:28 AM post.
Nesov>> Edward,
Nesov>> Does your estimate consider only amount of information required
for *representation*, or it also includes additional processing elements
required in neural setting to implement learning?
EWP>> The large numb
> the intuitiveness (or not) of evolution-like systems
I had a speech recently at the Life 2.0 Conference about the
"Evolution of Objects"
http://www.slideshare.net/davidorban/evolving-useful-objects-life-20-summit/
which touches a similar subject, in a different context.
> How many have a model
There's a really nice blog at
http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdom-of-crowds.html talking about
the intuitiveness (or not) of evolution-like systems (and a nice glimpse of
his Netflix contest entry using a Kohonen-like map builder).
Most of us here understand the value of a market or
Edward,
Does your estimate consider only amount of information required for
*representation*, or it also includes additional processing elements
required in neural setting to implement learning? I'm not sure 10^9 is far
off, because much more can be required for domain-independent
association/corr
Ben wrote:
> Having said that, I would still prefer to avoid the VC route for Novamente.
An other route that Novamente is apparently exploring, is that of open
source development, with OpenCog. It will be very interesting to see
how it pans out, what level of interest and involvement from the
larg
> From: J. Andrew Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [agi] More public awarenesss that AGI is coming fast
>
> Why does an AGI deliverable require more than 3-4 years? You better
> have a good answer for that, or no one will fund you. Most people
> *don't* have a good answer for that
31 matches
Mail list logo
