Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Trent Waddington < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the > books > > as an asset at ACME Marketing LLC and who's programming has b

Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))

Steve:question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable effort that is worth MUCH more? Well,because when you do just state basic principles - as you constructively started to do - I think you'll find that people can't even agree about those - any more than they can agree abou

[agi] Re: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft)

Instead of responding to each comment, I'd make the following answers altogether: 1. This paper assumes a background of algorithm analysis. People without that won't correctly understand what I mean. 2. A CPS system is "non-algorithmic" with respect to some problems, while still be "algorithmic"

Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)

--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry for being unclear. The two categories of AI that I refer to are the near term "smart internet" automated economy and longer term "artificial human" or transhuman phases. In the smart internet phase, individuals with competing go

Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source)

--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I always advocated a clear seperation between work and PLAY > > Here the appeal would be amusement / entertainment - not > any specified work > goal > > Have my PR - AI call your PR - AI !! > > and Show Me the $$$ !! As mo

[agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

[You'll note that arguably the single greatest influence on people's thoughts about AGI here is Google - basically Google search - and that still means to most text search. However, video search & other kinds of image search [along with online video broadcasting] are already starting to transfo

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Mike, Google has had basically no impact on the AGI thinking of myself or 95% of the other serious AGI researchers I know... On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > [You'll note that arguably the single greatest influence on people's > thoughts about AGI here i

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike, Google has had basically no impact on the AGI thinking of myself or 95% of the other serious AGI researchers I know... Which is rather curious, because Google is the closest we have to AI at the moment. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Mike, Google has had basically no impact on the AGI thinking of myself or 95% of the other serious AGI researchers I know.. When did you start thinking about creating an online virtual AGI?. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Google is the closest we have to AI at the moment. Matt, There is a difference between being good at a) finding problem-related info/pages, and b) finding functional solutions (through reasoning), especially when all the n

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Matt Mahoney > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Google is the closest we have to AI at the moment. > > Matt, > > There is a difference between being good at > a) finding problem-related info/pages, and

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote: > There is a difference between being good at > a) finding problem-related info/pages, and > b) finding functional solutions (through reasoning), especially when > all the needed data is available. > > Google cannot handle even trivial answer-emb

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Fri, 9/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike, Google has had basically no impact on the AGI thinking of myself or > 95% of the other serious AGI researchers I know... > > Which is rather curious, b

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Mike, Google has had basically no impact on the AGI thinking of myself or 95% of the other serious AGI researchers I know... Ben, Come again. Your thinking about a superAGI, and AGI takeoff, is not TOTALLY dependent on Google? You would stlll argue that a superAGI is possible WITHOUT a

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Yes of course, as I have been working on this stuff since way before Google existed... or before the Web existed... Anyway, use of Google as an information resource is distinct from use of Google as a metaphor or inspiration for AGI ... after all, I would not even know about AI had I never encount

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Quick test. Q: What world leader lost 2 fingers playing with grenades as a boy? powerset.com: doesn't know. cognition.com (wiki): doesn't know. google.com: the second link leads to a scanned page of a book giving the answer as Boris Yeltsin. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Fri, 9/

Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))

Mike, On 9/19/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve:question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable > effort that is worth MUCH more? > > Well,because when you do just state basic principles - as you > constructively started to do - I think you'll find that peo

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > Quick test. > > Q: What world leader lost 2 fingers playing with grenades as a boy? > powerset.com: doesn't know. > cognition.com (wiki): doesn't know. > > google.com: the second link leads to a scanned page of a book giving the > answer as Bo

Re: Repair Theory (was Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re: Proprietary_Open_Source))

Steve: Thanks for wringing my thoughts out. Can you twist a little tighter?! Steve, A v. loose practical analogy is mindmaps - it was obviously better for Buzan to develop a sub-discipline/technique 1st, and a program later. What you don't understand, I think, in all your reasoning about "repai

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Matt, > Q: how many fluid ounces in a cubic mile? > Google: 1 cubic mile = 1.40942995 × 10^14 US fluid ounces > > Q: who is the tallest U.S. president? > Google: Abraham Lincoln at six feet four inches. (along with other text) Try "What's the color of Dan Brown's black coat?" What's the excuse fo

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Ben:I would not even know about AI had I never encountered paper, yet the properties of paper have really not been inspirational in my AGI design efforts... Your unconscious keeps talking to you. It is precisely paper that mainly shapes your thinking about AI. Paper has been the defining medium

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

> > That's the main reason why you think logic, maths and language are all you > really need for intelligence - paper. > Just for clarity: while I think that in principle one could make a maths-only AGI, my present focus is on building an AGI that is embodied in virtual robots and potentially real

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Ben:Just for clarity: while I think that in principle one could make a maths-only AGI, my present focus is on building an AGI that is embodied in virtual robots and potentially real robots as well ... in addition to communicating via language and internally utilizing logic on various levels..

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

--- On Fri, 9/19/08, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > > Quick test. > > > > Q: What world leader lost 2 fingers playing with > grenades as a boy? > > powerset.com: doesn't know. > > cognition.com (wiki): doesn't know. > > > > google.com: the

The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try "What's the color of Dan Brown's black coat?" What's the excuse > for a general problem solver to fail in this case? NLP? It > then should use a formal language or so. Google uses relatively good > search algorithms but decent gene

Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

Matt wrote, > There seems to be a lot of effort to implement reasoning in knowledge > representation systems, even though it has little to do with how we actually > think. Please note that not all of us in the AGI field are trying to closely emulate human thought. Human-level thought does not

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

Right now the virtual pets and bots don't use vision processing except in a fairly trivial sense: they do see objects, but they don't need to identify the objects using vision processing, they're just "given" the locations and shapes of the objects by the virtual world server. But future versions

Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

I think the whole idea of a semantic layer is to provide the kind of mechanism for abstract reasoning that evolution seems to have built into the human brain. You could argue that those faculties are acquired during one's life, using only a weighted neural net (brain), but it seems reasonable to as

Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if you can learn these types of patterns then with no additional effort > you can learn patterns that directly solve the problem... This kind of reminds me of the "people think in their natural language" theory that St

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

On Friday 19 September 2008, BillK wrote: > Last I heard Peter Norvig was saying that Google had no interest in > putting a natural language front-end on Google. > Arguably that's still natural language, even if it's just tags instead of struc

Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies

On Friday 19 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote: > Your unconscious keeps talking to you. It is precisely paper that > mainly shapes your thinking about AI. Paper has been the defining > medium of literate civilisation. And what characterises all literate > forms is nice, discrete, static, fragment

Re: The brain does not implement formal logic (was Re: [agi] Where the Future of AGI Lies)

Matt, > People who haven't studied > logic or its notation can certainly learn to do this type of reasoning. Formal logic doesn't scale up very well in humans. That's why this kind of reasoning is so unpopular. Our capacities are that small and we connect to other human entities for a kind of dis

[agi] NLP? Nope. NLU? Yep!

I believe the company mentioned in this article was referenced in an active thread here recently. They claim to have "semantically enabled Wikipedia." Their stuff is supposed to have a vocabulary 10x that of the typical U.S. college graduate. Currently being licensed to software developers