(I'm kind of busy with personal matters... so will be brief)
I want to know where can we have an AGI project that allows
collaboration, and is also commercial?
I think many of the other AI communities are strongly academical.
This list is slightly different in that respect.
YKY
How general should be AGI?
When I heard the term AGI for the first time, I had to think about the
general problem solver from 1959
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver).
It solved a few simple problems but was overstrained with real world
problems.
Second, there is Gödel's
From http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang-goertzel.AGI_06.pdf page 5:
---
In the current context, when we say that the human mind or an AGI system is
general purpose, we do not mean that it can solve all kinds of
problems in all kinds
of domains, but that it has the potential to solve any problem
Richard Loosemore said:
To answer your question, the complexity is so deeply embedded in the
thing that the AGI is supposed to be doing, that it is not at all clear
if there will ever be a way to build an AGI without it being complex.
Remember: that is the point of the argument - that it is not
In my opinion you can apply Gödel's theorem to prove that 100% AGI is not
possible in this world
if you apply it not to a hypothetical machine or human being but to the
whole universe which can be assumed to be a closed system.
The axioms are the laws of physics.
Then, everything what happens in
== Mark Waser's Fri 4/25/2008 9:22 AM post said==
I have to side with Richard on this. The truth is *not* obvious. I have my
beliefs which I will express when I get the time later today or tomorrow --
but -- there is absolutely no reason for you to be dismissive like this.
Richard is
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How general should be AGI?
If all you aim for is a system that has unlimited potential, then a
Universal Turing Machine is as far as you need to go, and as far as
you can go. A more important goal to be build a system
Vladimir,
On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be true or
false based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary
decisions
Mike,
On 4/24/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve:What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving
much the current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung
out.My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and
direct effort
Tell me: what are the algorithms that will force you to process this image
in an inevitable way (and what is that way?):
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p3/Rorschach.gif
(Oh - and a, linas, Bob, Mark, et al - can we agree that there is no way
for maths to process that
On Samstag, 26. April 2008 17:00 Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
to many people, including me, this is exactly what AGI is
after: a baby with all kinds of potentials, not an adult that can do
everything.
I understand AGI in the same way but even the term all kind of potentials
WHY ARE RICHARD'S METHODS THAT PRODUCE FALSE STATEMENTS MUCH BETTER
THAN
MY IDEAS
First, please stop shouting (as others have requested)
--- which are better --- as your above quote implies. That is
contrary to any reasonable notion of what science is supposed to be about.
Sorry. Science
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Name these systems and their successes. PROVE Richard's statement
incorrect. I'm not seeing anyone responsible doing that.
I don't know if I count as someone responsible :) but I named two
(TD-Gammon and spam
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion you can apply Gödel's theorem to prove that 100% AGI is not
possible in this world
if you apply it not to a hypothetical machine or human being but to the
whole universe which can be assumed to be a
Richard,
I've been too busy to participate in this thread, but, now I'll chip
in a single comment,
anyways... regarding the intersection btw your thoughts and Novamente's
current work...
You cited the following 4 criteria,
- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored information about what it was
I believe the monsters in the video game Black White also fulfilled Richard's
criteria ...
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Russell Wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Name these systems and their successes. PROVE
I don't know if I count as someone responsible :) but I named two
(TD-Gammon and spam filtering); I can name some more if you like.
*Everyone* counts as someone responsible.
Now, the next argument is -- how effective are these systems, both in
general and at being general?
TD-Gammon seems
They are monsters that learn new behaviors via imitation, and that are
controlled internally by adaptive neural nets using a form of Hebbian
learning.
Nothing that awesome but they do seem to fulfill Richard's criteria.
My friend Jason Hutchens, whose chat bots won the Loebner prize at
least
Ben,
Could you elucidate on this further (or provide references). Is it
worth getting Black White if you're not a big gaming person?
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:14 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, your argumentation is that an AGI system (e.g. human being) can
solve any halting problem because it can change
over time by making more and more experiences. But the even the experience
making human
MT: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p3/Rorschach.gif
(Oh - and a, linas, Bob, Mark, et al - can we agree that there is no way
for maths to process that image, period?)
Mark:No. I strongly disagree with your assertion. What you believe you are
processing (w)holistically can
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
So what you must tell me is how your or any geometrical system of analysis
is going to be able to take a rorschach and come up similarly with a
recognizable object or creature. Bear in mind, your system will be given no
initial clues as to
Don't understand your point fully. Perhaps my English is too bad.
I have had the impression, that pei wang thought that gödels theorem and the
halting problem do not apply for human beings because they are open systems.
Perhaps he is right but not because of the open system issue but because it
Steve,
Yes it's good to acknowledge that you recognize the importance of in-the-field
investigation and hands-on experimentation to creative problem-solving.
But you have yet - and, as you more or less indicate, everyone in AI and AGI -
has yet to show me (or, I think, the world), that they
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't
support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two.
God hypothesis is as useful as
Ben Goertzel wrote:
They are monsters that learn new behaviors via imitation, and that are
controlled internally by adaptive neural nets using a form of Hebbian
learning.
Nothing that awesome but they do seem to fulfill Richard's criteria.
My criteria for what?
Richard Loosemore
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't understand your point fully. Perhaps my English is too bad.
I have had the impression, that pei wang thought that gödels theorem and the
halting problem do not apply for human beings because they are open
2008/4/26 Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How general should be AGI?
My answer, as *potentially* general as possible. In a similar fashion
that a UTM is as potentially as general as possible, but with more
purpose.
There are plenty of problems you can define that don't need the
halting
BillK: MT: So what you must tell me is how your or any geometrical system
of analysis
is going to be able to take a rorschach and come up similarly with a
recognizable object or creature. Bear in mind, your system will be given
no
initial clues as to what objects or creatures are suitable as
You've missed the point. What a human does in looking at a rorschach is to
see - i.e. compare it with - a recognizable object or creature - a bat,
for instance, or an ant, or a gargoyle.
I didn't miss the point. The standard visual operators are doing exactly
the same thing.
So what you
Ummm... just a little note of warning from the list owner.
Tintner wrote:
So I await your geometric solution to this problem - (a mere statement of
principle will do) - with great interest. Well, actually no. Your answer is
broadly predictable - you 1) won't have any idea here 2) will have
I assume you are referring to Mike Tintner.
As I described a while ago, I *plonk*ed him myself a long time ago, most mail
programs have the ability to do that. and it's a good idea to figure out how to
do it with your own email program.
He does have the ability to point at other thinkers and
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
I've been too busy to participate in this thread, but, now I'll chip
in a single comment,
anyways... regarding the intersection btw your thoughts and Novamente's
current work...
You cited the following 4 criteria,
- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the monsters in the video game Black White also fulfilled
Richard's
criteria ...
That they did. A bit too much micromanagement to be an enjoyable game
for my taste, but a good example of what you can do if you
Richard,
How does this relate to the original context in which I cited this list
of four characteristics? It loks like your comments are completely outside
the original context, so they don't add anything of relevance.
I read the thread and I think my comments are relevant
Let me bring
35 matches
Mail list logo
