Mike Tintner wrote:
Charles: Flaws in Hamlet: I don't think of this as involving general
intelligence. Specialized intelligence, yes, but if you see general
intelligence at work there you'll need to be more explicit for me to
understand what you mean. Now determining whether a particular
Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Object oriented programming is good for organizing software but I don't
think for organizing human knowledge. It is a very rough
approximation. We have used O-O for designing ontologies and expert
systems (IS-A links, etc), but this approach does
Charles,
We're still a few million miles apart :). But perhaps we can focus on
something constructive here. On the one hand, while, yes, I'm talking about
extremely sophisticated behaviour in essaywriting, it has generalizable
features that characterise all life. (And I think BTW that a dog
--- Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Actually that's only true in artificial languages. Children learn
words with semantic content like ball and milk before they learn
function words like the and of, in spite of their higher
Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
eat(Food f)
eat(Food f, ListSideDish l)
eat (Food f, ListTool l)
eat (Food f, ListPeople l)
...
This type of knowledge representation has been tried and it leads to a
morass of rules and no intuition on how children learn grammar. We do
not
Dr. Matthias Heger wrote:
Performance not an unimportant question. I assume that AGI has necessarily
has costs which grow exponentially with the number of states and actions so
that AGI will always be interesting only for toy domains.
My assumption is that human intelligence is not truly
Charles: as far as I can tell ALL modes of human thought
only operate within restricted domains.
I literally can't conceive where you got this idea from :). Writing an
essay - about, say, the French Revolution, future of AGI, flaws in Hamlet,
what you did in the zoo, or any of the other
Mike Tintner wrote:
Charles: as far as I can tell ALL modes of human thought
only operate within restricted domains.
I literally can't conceive where you got this idea from :). Writing an
essay - about, say, the French Revolution, future of AGI, flaws in
Hamlet, what you did in the zoo, or
Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The two AGI modes that I believe people use are 1) mathematics and 2)
experiment. Note that both operate in restricted domains, but within
those domains they *are* general. (E.g., mathematics cannot generate
it's own axioms, postulates, and
--- Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Humans uses and create object oriented descriptions of the world
similar to the paradigms of object oriented programming
Object oriented programming is good for organizing software but I don't
think for organizing human knowledge. It is a very
Charles: Flaws in Hamlet: I don't think of this as involving general
intelligence. Specialized intelligence, yes, but if you see general
intelligence at work there you'll need to be more explicit for me to
understand what you mean. Now determining whether a particular deviation
from iambic
Mike,
I derived a few things from your response - even enjoyed it. One point
passed over too quickly was the question of How knowable is the world?
I take this to be a rhetorical question meant to suggest that we need
all of it to be considered intelligent. This suggestion seems to be
]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] How general can be and should be AGI?
Mike,
I derived a few things from your response - even enjoyed it. One point
passed over too quickly was the question of How knowable is the world?
I take
Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 26. April 2008 19:54
Yes, truly general AI is only possible in the case of infinite
processing power, which is
likely not physically realizable.
How much generality can be achieved with how much
Processing power, is not yet known -- math
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I wanted to say is that any intelligence has
to be narrow in a sense if it wants be powerful and useful. There must
always be strong assumptions of the world deep in any algorithm of useful
intelligence.
is impossible and human intelligence must be narrow
to a certain degree.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. April 2008 13:50
An: agi@v2.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: [agi] How general can be and should be AGI?
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Dr
]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. April 2008 13:50
An: agi@v2.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: [agi] How general can be and should be AGI?
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I wanted to say is that any intelligence has
to be narrow in a sense if it wants
with this knowledge you can avoid the
problem of huge state spaces.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. April 2008 15:03
An: agi@v2.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: [agi] How general can be and should be AGI?
If by truly general you mean absolutely
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 26. April 2008 19:54
Yes, truly general AI is only possible in the case of infinite
processing power, which is
likely not physically realizable.
How much
Matthias: a state description could be:
...I am in a kitchen. The door is open. It has two windows. There is a
sink. And three cupboards. Two chairs. A fly is on
the right window. The sun is shining. The color of the chair is... etc.
etc.
2008/4/27 Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 26. April 2008 19:54
Yes, truly general AI is only possible in the case of infinite
processing power, which is
likely not physically realizable.
How much generality can be achieved with
Mike Tintner wrote
What is totally missing is a philosophical and semiotic perspective. A
philosopher looks at things v. differently and asks essentially : how much
information can we get about a given subject (and the world generally)? A
semioticist asks: how much and what kinds of
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
@v2.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: [agi] How general can be and should be AGI?
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
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
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
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
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
.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: [agi] How general can be and should be AGI?
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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
