Essentially, Richard & others are replaying the same old problems of
computational explosions - see "computational complexity" in this history of
cog. sci. review - no?
Mechanical Mind
Gilbert Harman
Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Margaret A. Boden. Two
volumes, xlviii + 1631
Mike Tintner wrote:
Essentially, Richard & others are replaying the same old problems of
computational explosions - see "computational complexity" in this
history of cog. sci. review - no?
No: this is a misunderstanding of "complexity" unfortunately (cf the
footnote on p1 of my AGIRI paper):
Mike:
MIKE TINTNER#> Science's autistic, emotionally deprived, insanely
rational nature in front of the supernatural (if it exists), and indeed the
whole world, needs analysing just as much as the overemotional,
underrational fantasies of the religious about the supernatural.
ED PORTER#>
Dave,
Such large memories are cool, but of course AGI requires a lot of processing
power to go with the memory. The price cited at the bottom of the below
article for 120GB wasn’t that much less than the price for which would
could by 128GB with 8 quad core opterons in one of the links you sent m
Thanks. But one way and another, although there are different variations,
cog sci and AI have been obsessed with computational explosions? Ultimately,
it seems to me, these are all the problems of algorithms - of a rigid,
rational approach and system - which inevitably get stuck in dealing with
Hey Ben,
Any chance of instituting some sort of moderation on this list?
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
Mike:
MIKE TINTNER#> Science's autistic, emotionally deprived,
"Self-organizing complexity" and "computational complexity"
are quite separate technical uses of the word "complexity", though I
do think there
are subtle relationships.
As an example of a relationship btw the two kinds of complexity, look
at Crutchfield's
work on using formal languages to model t
*I just want to jump in here and say I appreciate the content of this post as
opposed to many of the posts of late which were just name calling and
bickering... hope to see more content instead.*
Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ed Porter wrote:
> Jean-Paul,
>
> Although complexity
Mike,
You are talking about two different occurrences of a computational
explosion here, so we need to distinguish them.
One is a computational explosion that occurs at design time: this is
when a researcher gets an algorithm to do something on a "toy" problem,
but then they figure out ho
>However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**.
>I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively
>tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity.
I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI the ability to
modify its
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
"Self-organizing complexity" and "computational complexity"
are quite separate technical uses of the word "complexity", though I
do think there
are subtle relationships.
As an example of a relationship btw the two kinds of complexity, look
at Crutchfield's
work on using
Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think:
http://www.falazar.com/AI/AAAI05_Student_Abtract_James_Ratcliff.pdf
Would like to work with others on a full fledged Reprensentation system that
could use these kind of techniques
I hacked this together by myself, so I know a real team could
From: Joshua Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It's interesting that the "field" of memetics is moribund (ex. the
> Journal
> of Memetics hasn't published in two years) but the meme of memetics is
> alive
> and well. I wonder, do any of the AGI researchers find the concept of
> Memes
> useful in
James Ratcliff wrote:
>However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**.
>I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively
>tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity.
I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI
irrationality - is used to describe thinking and actions which are, or appear
to be, less useful or logical than the other alternatives.
and rational would be the opposite of that.
This line of thinking is more concerned with the behaviour of the entities,
which requires Goal orienting and othe
Richard:> Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do work
are ones
in which the symbols never use "truth values" but use other stuff (for
which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a "truth
value" is actually the result of an operator that can be applied to a
James,
I read your paper. Your project seems right on the mark. It provides a
domain-limited example of the general type of learning algorithm that will
probably be the central learning algorithm of AGI, i.e., finding patterns,
and hierarchies of patterns in the AGI's experience in a largely
James: Either of these systems described will have a Complexity Problem, any
AGI will because it is a very complex system.
System 1 I dont believe is strictly practical, as few Truth values can be
stored locally directly to the frame. More realistic is there may be a
temporary value such as:
> From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is,
> frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't
> mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in
> the hardware of the universe.
John,
You implied there "might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering
certain cognitive engineering issues" by using religion in AGIs.
Obviously any powerful AGI that deals with a complex and uncertain world
like ours would have to have belief systems, but it is not clear to me their
wou
--- Jean-Paul Van Belle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Matt, Wonderful idea, now it will even show the typical human trait of
> lying...when i ask it "do you still love me?" most answers in its database
> will have Yes as an answer but when i ask it 'what's my name?' it'll call
> me John?
My pr
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard:> Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do
work are ones
in which the symbols never use "truth values" but use other stuff (for
which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a "truth
value" is actually the result of an operator that
--- Dennis Gorelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you need image recognition in your AGI prototype?
> You can feed it with text. Then AGI would simply parse text [and
> optionally - Google it].
>
> No need for massive computational capabilities.
Not when you can just use Google's 10^6 CPU cl
Well, this wasn't quite what I was pointing to: there will always be a
need for parameter tuning. That goes without saying.
The point was that if an AGI developer were to commit to system 1, they
are never going to get to the (hypothetical) system 2 by anything as
trivial as parameter tuni
--- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is an AGI really going to feel pain or is it just going to be some numbers?
> I guess that doesn't have a simple answer. The pain has to be engineered
> well for it to REALLY understand it.
An agent capable of reinforcement learning has an upper bou
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is an AGI really going to feel pain or is it just going to be some numbers?
I guess that doesn't have a simple answer. The pain has to be engineered
well for it to REALLY understand it.
An agent capable of reinforcement learnin
What I dont see then, is anywhere where System 2 ( a neural net?) is better
than system 1, or where it avoids the complexity issues.
I dont have a goal of system 2 from system one yet.
James
Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, this wasn't quite what I was pointing to: there wil
What do you call the computer that simulates what you perceive to be the
universe?
-- 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=7
Ed,
It's a very complicated subject and requires a certain theoretical mental
background and somewhat unbiased mindset. Though a biased mindset, for
example a person, who is religious, could use the theory to propel their
religion into post humanity - maybe a good idea to help preserve humanity -
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean
> for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no
> validity at all. It is purely a numeric calculation that makes no
> reference to what "pain" (or an
--- Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 10 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> > The worst case scenario is that AI wipes out all life on earth, and
> > then itself, although I believe at least the AI is likely to survive.
>
> http://lifeboat.com/ex/ai.shield
SIAI has not yet so
John,
For a reply of its short length, given the subject, it was quite helpful in
letting me know the type of things you were talking about.
Thank you.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:41 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.
On 11/12/2007, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://lifeboat.com/ex/ai.shield
That's quite amusing. Safeguarding humanity against dancing robots.
I don't believe that technology is something you can run away from, in
a space lifeboat or any other sort of refuge. You just have to t
The First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-08)
March 1-3, 2008 at Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Early Registration Deadline: January 31, 2008
Conference Website: http://www.agi-08.org
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) research focuses on the original
and ultimate goal of AI --- t
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> --- Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case
> > scenario accounts for nearly any finite computing power, via the
> > production of semiconductant silicon wafer tech.
>
> A human brain
On Dec 11, 2007 7:26 PM, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think:
>
> http://www.falazar.com/AI/AAAI05_Student_Abtract_James_Ratcliff.pdf
>
> Would like to work with others on a full fledged Reprensentation system that
> could use these kind of te
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean
for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no
validity at all. It is purely a numeric calculation that makes no
reference to what
James Ratcliff wrote:
What I dont see then, is anywhere where System 2 ( a neural net?) is
better than system 1, or where it avoids the complexity issues.
I was just giving an example of the degree of flexibility required - the
exact details of this example are not important.
My point was th
--- Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SIAI has not yet solved the friendliness problem.
>
> I've always had problems with the concept of "friendliness" spoken
> about by folks from SIAI. It seems like a very ill-defined concept.
> What does "friendly to humanity" really mean? It seems t
John G. Rose wrote:
From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is,
frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't
mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in
the hardware of th
--- Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> > --- Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case
> > > scenario accounts for nearly any finite computing power, via the
> > > production
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Mahoney wrote:
> > --- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean
> >> for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no
> >> validity at all.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/12/checking-in-on.html
===
If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first
computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing Test.
===
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change you
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Dennis Gorelik wrote:
> If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first
> computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing
> Test.
I thought the Turing Test involved fooling/convincing judges, not
clueless men hoping to get some
Bruce,
The following is a good idea "Different from conventional conferences,
AGI-08 is planned to be intensively discussion oriented. All the research
papers accepted for
publication in the Proceedings (49 papers total) will be available in
advance online, so that attendees may arrive prepared
Matt,
>> You can feed it with text. Then AGI would simply parse text [and
>> optionally - Google it].
>>
>> No need for massive computational capabilities.
> Not when you can just use Google's 10^6 CPU cluster and its database with 10^9
> human contributors.
That's one of my points: our current
Bryan,
>> If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first
>> computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing
>> Test.
> I thought the Turing Test involved fooling/convincing judges, not
> clueless men hoping to get some action?
In my taste, testing with
47 matches
Mail list logo
