On 4/18/08, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:32 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
Disk access rate is ~10 times faster than ethernet access rate. IMO,
if RAM is not enough the next thing to turn to should be the harddisk.
Eh? Ethernet latency is sub-millisecond,
Plus, learning requires that we store a lot of hypotheses. Let's say
1000-1 times the real KB.
I reject this hypothesis as ludicrously incorrect.
- Original Message -
From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:58 PM
I agree with your side of the debate about whole KB not fitting into RAM.
As a solution, I propose to partition the whole KB into the tiniest possible
cached chunks, suitable for a single agent running on a host computer with
RAM resources of at least one GB. And I propose that AGI will
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um. Neither side is arguing that the whole KB fit into RAM. I'm arguing
that the necessary *core* for intelligence plus enough cached chunks (as
you phrase it) to support the current thought processes WILL fit into RAM.
It's obviously ludicrous that
On 4/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um. Neither side is arguing that the whole KB fit into RAM. I'm arguing
that the necessary *core* for intelligence plus enough cached chunks (as
you phrase it) to support the current thought processes WILL fit into RAM.
It's obviously ludicrous
On 4/18/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your estimate of the quantity of all the world's knowledge? (Or the
amount needed to achieve AGI or some specific goal?)
Matt,
The world's knowledge is irrelevant to the goal of AGI. What we
need is to build a commonsense AGI and then
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your estimate of the quantity of all the world's knowledge? (Or
the amount needed to achieve AGI or some specific goal?)
I have no idea (and the question is further muddled by what knowledge is and
what formats are included). The
Benjamin Johnston wrote:
I have stuck my neck out and written an Open Letter to AGI (Artificial
General Intelligence) Investors on my website at http://susaro.com.
All part of a campaign to get this field jumpstarted.
Next week I am going to put up a road map for my own development project.
Mark Waser wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
To say to an investor that AGI would be useful because we could use
them to build travel agents and receptionists is to utter something
completely incoherent.
Not at all. It is catering to their desires and refraining from
forcibly educating them.
PREMISES:
(1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
(2) Since all previous attempts failed, investors and funding agencies
have enough reason to wait until a recognizable breakthrough to put
their money
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PREMISES:
(1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative open-source
software
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PREMISES:
(1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative open-source
software development could render your first premise false ...
Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative open-source
projects are best suited to situations in which the fundamental ideas behind
the
Richard,
You are right, though the overhead is not mainly money, but time.
Of course I don't really believe in my proof, otherwise I'd say that
AGI is impossible. ;-)
Among the premises I listed, only (1) is not my personal belief,
though I know it is assumed by many people.
I believe AGI is
Pei: I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
by a single person or a small group, with little funding
How do you define that problem?
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
See http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Definitions.pdf
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei: I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
by a single person or a small group, with little funding
How do you define that
On 4/19/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PREMISES:
(1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative open-source
On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative open-source
projects are best suited to situations in which the fundamental ideas behind
the design has been solved.
I believe I've solved the fundamental issues behind the
Another problem is how to judge the impressiveness of a demo,
especially if you're a non expert. It's relatively easy to come up
with superficially impressive demos, which then turn out upon closer
investigation to be fraught with problems or just not scalable. This
seems to happen all the time
On 4/19/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we lack such a consensus. So the theorists are not working together.
I correct that. Theorists do not need to work together; theories can
be applied anywhere. It's the *designers* who are not working
together.
YKY
On 18/04/2008, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
by a single person or a small group, with little funding.
I'm not sure I believe this. After working on this a bit, it has become
clear to me that there are more ideas than
Linas Vepstas wrote:
Richard wrote:
Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative
open-source projects are best suited to situations in which the
fundamental ideas behind the design has been solved.
Just having a large gang of programmers on an open-source project
does not
Linas,
Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
testing. Also, in this field, no infrastructure is really
theoretically neutral --- OpenCog is clearly not suitable to test
all kinds of AGI theories, though I like the project, and is willing
to help.
Open-source will
On 4/19/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
testing. Also, in this field, no infrastructure is really
theoretically neutral --- OpenCog is clearly not suitable to test
all kinds of AGI theories, though I like the project, and
Richard,
Though I do believe I have the right idea, I surely know that there
are still issues I haven't fully solved. Therefore I don't really want
a big gang at now (that will only waste the time of mine and the
others), but a small-but-good gang, plus more time for myself ---
which means less
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For this reason, I'm tempted to opensource my stuff, but where would
be my compensation? Do I really HAVE to sacrifice my pay check...??
Yes, you do, as Wang's Theorem demonstrates.
You must persevere in your
Pei: I don't really want
a big gang at now (that will only waste the time of mine and the
others), but a small-but-good gang, plus more time for myself ---
which means less group debates, I guess. ;-)
Alternatively, you could open your problems for group discussion
think-tanking... I'm
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei: I don't really want
a big gang at now (that will only waste the time of mine and the
others), but a small-but-good gang, plus more time for myself ---
which means less group debates, I guess. ;-)
Alternatively,
YKY,
I believe I've solved the fundamental issues behind the Novamente/OpenCog
design...
It's hard to tell whether you have really solved the AGI problem, at
this stage. ;)
Understood...
Also, your AGI framework has a lot of non-standard, home-brew stuff
(especially the knowledge
In the below quote in the below article the number 1000 was meant to be
100 in the below quote. With intelligent RAM, this number could be
perhaps a high as 500, depending on what you mean by a current PC, but
intelligent RAM would, at least initially, be much more expensive.
Such a system would
--- Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
by a single person or a small group, with little funding.
I think that we are still massively underestimating the cost of AGI, just as
we have been doing for the last 50 years. The
On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't claim that the Novamente/OpenCog design is the **only** way ... but I
do
note that the different parts are carefully designed to interoperate together
in subtle ways, so replacing any one component w/ some standard system
won't work.
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/19/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
testing. Also, in this field, no infrastructure is really
theoretically neutral --- OpenCog is clearly not suitable to test
all
33 matches
Mail list logo
