--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an increasingly strong political incentive (between
> countries) to create distributed indexes, but quite frankly the
> technology does not exist. This was something I studied in earnest
> when various governments started demanding
On May 1, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your model above tacitly predicates its optimality on a naive MCP
strategy, but is not particularly well-suited for it. In short, this
means that you are assuming that the aggregate latency func
--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your model above tacitly predicates its optimality on a naive MCP
> strategy, but is not particularly well-suited for it. In short, this
> means that you are assuming that the aggregate latency function for a
> transaction over the network is
On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Which protocol are you referring to, the one described on my web page
or the abstract one described in my thesis?
Thesis.
In the abstract one I
described a network of n identical (but unreliable) peers, each
connected to c = O(log n) peers,.
--- Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *nods* Would it be accurate to say that you see the encoding of
> specific knowledge as the difficult and expensive thing, then, and so
> you're trying to create an environment that maximizes the resources
> that can be brought to bear on it, while
--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> > By distributing the problem across the internet. AGI can be
> divided
> > into lots of specialized experts and a network for getting messages
> to
> > the right experts. http://www.mattm
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *nods* So basically you propose to follow in evolution's footsteps in
> starting with S, layering some level of D on top of it, then getting
> the rest of the way by connecting up external devices to fill in the
> r
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deliberative reasoning is not at the core of the system I'm thinking
> about, but for example given an external tape 'in the environment',
> such system can easily implement a finite state machine to drive a
> UTM. Lik
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think so, if I understand you correctly, you're agreeing with me
> that it's not feasible to go directly from S to a full von Neumann or
> Turing machine; so you propose concentrating on S, and then building a
>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know the argument that once you build one AGI, making copies is
> cheap. No, it's not. In an organization, every member has a unique
> job, so every member needs to be trained individually. The costs may
> be indire
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is why you can't learn to multiply numbers in your head like a
> calculator (or maybe it's possible with sufficient understanding of
> learning dynamics, but was never implemented...). You unfortunately
> don't ha
On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
By distributing the problem across the internet. AGI can be divided
into lots of specialized experts and a network for getting messages to
the right experts. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html
There are a few problems with your model that n
--- Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So my distinction between S-first and D-first isn't particularly
> relevant to you, because you're not proposing a monolithic AGI;
> you're
> instead proposing a community or marketplace of narrow AI modules
> (some S-oriented, some D-oriented), that
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well yes, like I said, we can recap the fact that logic gates are a
> special case of neurons, but this fact is of limited use:
>
> 1) _You_ can set up circuits in this way, but the network itself can't,
>
I believe
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Understanding" can be as simple as matching terms in two documents, or
> something more complex, such as matching a video clip to a text or
> audio description. However, there is an incentive to develop
> sophisticated
--- Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > By modeling symbolic knowledge in a neural network. I realize it
> is
> > horribly inefficient, but at least we have a working model to
> > start from.
>
> Ineffici
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deliberative reasoning can be expressed as processing performed by an
> inference circuit, a network that propagates activation and calculates
> the result using logic gates. Particular deliberative algorithms can
> be
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By modeling symbolic knowledge in a neural network. I realize it is
> horribly inefficient, but at least we have a working model to start
> from.
Inefficient is reasonable, but how do you propose to do it at all?
-
--- Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gather you're a proponent of S-then-D though. How do you propose
> going from one to the other?
By modeling symbolic knowledge in a neural network. I realize it is
horribly inefficient, but at least we have a working model to start
from.
-- Ma
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This isn't at all obvious to me, I have to admit! (Assuming we're
> talking in a practically useful sense, not recapping something like
> "logic gates are a special case of neurons".) Certainly biology had a
> long
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the more traditional classification is D = symbolic, S =
> pattern recognition/motor, or D = high level, S = low level. The
> D-then-S approach has been popular not because it is biologically
> plausible, but be
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will take a third position and point out that there is no real
> distinction between these two categories, or at least if there is you are
> doing it wrong. One of the amusing and fruitless patterns of behavior in
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I claim that we can and do think in each of the 16 modes implied by the above
> (and others as well).
That is certainly true...
> I think the key to AI is not so much to figure how to operate in any given
> one
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here, I think, is a more detailed start to what you're talking about: our
> different ways of perceiving and thinking about the world.
Okay...
> Yes all this is absolutely central to solving AGI. What have I left out?
A
--- Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a consensus at least that AGI paths fall into the two
> categories of D-then-S or S-then-D?
I think the more traditional classification is D = symbolic, S =
pattern recognition/motor, or D = high level, S = low level. The
D-then-S approac
JAR/Russell:
This seems to be an example of what I was talking about in the other
thread - AI-ers starting with the set of sign systems and tools - and here
the kinds of intelligence - they know of personally, professionally, and
assume that they are the only kind, and encompass all types of
2008/4/30 J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One of the amusing and fruitless patterns of behavior in
> the AI community is the incessant categorization of various processes into
> nominally distinct buckets in the absence of a theoretically justifiable
> reason for doing so. The above is suc
On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:46 AM, Russell Wallace wrote:
Suppose we say there are two types of intelligence (not in any
rigorous sense, just in broad classification):
Deliberative. Able to prove theorems, solve the Busy Beaver problem
for small N, write and prove properties of small functions, const
This is poppycock. The people who are really good at something like that so
something as simple but much more general. They have an associative memory of
lots of balls they have seen and tried to catch. This includes not only the
tracking sight of the ball, but things like the feel of the wind,
Josh,
Gigerenzer doesn't sound like old stuff or irrelevant to me , with my
limited knowledge, (and also seems like a pretty good example of how v.
much more practical it can be to think imaginatively than mathematically,
no?)::
"how do real people make good decisions under the usual condit
This is all pretty old stuff for mainstream AI -- see Herb Simon and bounded
rationality. What needs work is the cross-modal interaction, and
understanding the details of how the heuristics arise in the first place from
the pressures of real-time processing constraints and deliberative modellin
Moving on from my previous post, the key distinction in mentality between
the literate and the new multimediate mentality is between PRE-SEMIOTIC and
SEMIOTIC.
The presemiotic person starts from the POV of his specialist sign system
and medium, when thinking about solving particular problems,
Russell,
This is a definite start and I'm just trying to put together a reasoned
thesis on this area. You're absolutely right that this is essential to
understanding AGI - General Intelligence - and literally no one does have
other than tiny fragments of understanding here, either in AI/AGI or
I disagree with your breakdown. There are several key divides:
Concrete vs abstract
Continuous vs discrete
spatial vs symbolic
deliberative vs reactive
I can be very deliberative, thinking in 2-d pictures (when designing a machine
part in my head, for example). I know lots of people who are com
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In biological terms D came from S. If you read about the history of
> numbers, or abstract concepts such as money, they have a clear origin
> in S but eventually transcended it. Even within the D realm S terms
> are sti
In biological terms D came from S. If you read about the history of
numbers, or abstract concepts such as money, they have a clear origin
in S but eventually transcended it. Even within the D realm S terms
are still used, for example "the value of the dollar is dropping like
a stone", or phrases
There's been a lot of argument (some of it from me, indeed) about what
type of intelligence is necessary for AGI. Let me take a shot at
resolving it.
Suppose we say there are two types of intelligence (not in any
rigorous sense, just in broad classification):
Deliberative. Able to prove theorems,
37 matches
Mail list logo
