Hank - do you have any theories or AGI designs?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
My aim is not a General AI, currently it's MJZT. General AI just
seems to be a side effect .u'i(amuzement). Nodes in a JZT communicate
through language (and whatever form it may take), automation occurs of
the communication. After a certain point a typical JZT "automation"
would be able to have
On 12/5/06, John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your message appeared at first to be rambling and incoherent, but I see that
that's probably because English is a second language for you. But that's
not a problem if your ideas are solid.
English is my second language. My first language is R
Alright, one last message for the night.
I don't actually consider myself to be pessimistic about AI. I believe that
strong AI can and will (bar some global catastrophe) develop. It's the
wrong-headed approaches through the history of AI that have hobbled the
whole enterprise. The 1970's ha
Hank,
Do you have a personal "understanding/design of AGI and intelligence in
general" that predicts a soon-to-come singularity? Do you have theories or a
design for an AGI?
John
Hank Conn wrote:
It has been my experience that one's expectations on the future of
AI/Singularity is di
I see a singularity, if it occurs at all, to be at least a hundred years
out.
To use Kurzweil's language, you're not thinking in "exponential time" ;-)
The artificial intelligence problem is much more difficult
than most people imagine it to be.
"Most people" have close to zero basis to eve
I'm a little bit familiar with Piaget, and I'm guessing that the "formal
stage of development" is something on the level of a four-year-old child.
If we could create an AI system with the intelligence of a four-year-old
child, then we would have a huge breakthrough, far beyond anything done so
Your message appeared at first to be rambling and incoherent, but I see that
that's probably because English is a second language for you. But that's
not a problem if your ideas are solid.
Yes, there is "fake artificial intelligence" out there, systems that are
proposed to be intelligent but
--- John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, I have to say this.
>
> I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I
> am working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but
> from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slo
See http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=44 and
http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/203-AI/Lecture/AGI.htm
Pei
On 12/5/06, Andrii (lOkadin) Zvorygin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there anywhere I could find a list and description of these
different kinds of AI?.a'u(interest) I'm sure I
On 12/5/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
>> If, on the other hand, all we have is the present approach to AI then I
>> tend to agree with you John: ludicrous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Loosemore
>
> IMO it is not sensible to speak of "the present approach to AI"
Ben Goertzel wrote:
...
According to my understanding of the Novamente design and artificial
developmental psychology, the breakthrough from slow to fast
incremental progress will occur when the AGI system reaches Piaget's
"formal stage" of development:
http://www.agiri.org/wiki/index.php/Formal
"Ummm... perhaps your skepticism has more to do with the inadequacies
of **your own** AGI design than with the limitations of AGI designs in
general?"
It has been my experience that one's expectations on the future of
AI/Singularity is directly dependent upon one's understanding/design of AGI
and
Ben Goertzel wrote:
If, on the other hand, all we have is the present approach to AI then I
tend to agree with you John: ludicrous.
Richard Loosemore
IMO it is not sensible to speak of "the present approach to AI"
There are a lot of approaches out there... not an orthodoxy by any means...
If, on the other hand, all we have is the present approach to AI then I
tend to agree with you John: ludicrous.
Richard Loosemore
IMO it is not sensible to speak of "the present approach to AI"
There are a lot of approaches out there... not an orthodoxy by any means...
-- Ben G
-
Thi
John Scanlon wrote:
Alright, I have to say this.
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even
occur. I am working very hard at developing real artificial general
intelligence, but from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will
be slow and incremental. The idea t
John,
On 12/5/06, John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I
am working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but
from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slow and
incremental. The
On 12/5/06, John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alright, I have to say this.
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I
am working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but
from what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slo
Alright, I have to say this.
I don't believe that the singularity is near, or that it will even occur. I am
working very hard at developing real artificial general intelligence, but from
what I know, it will not come quickly. It will be slow and incremental. The
idea that very soon we can cr
Thank you for your responses.
Jeff, I have taken your suggestion and sent a couple
questions to the Summit. My concern is motivated by
noticing that the Summit includes speakers who have
been very clear about their opposition to regulating
AI, but none who I am aware of who have advocated it
(exce
Ben is pretty spot on here. There are many possible approaches and
views that will not be covered; there simply isn't enough time. I
can't speak for the speakers, nor for the extent to which any one of
them will focus his or her time on regulation. But please note that
the Summit has an open in
On 5/10/06, Bill Hibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Singularity Summit should include all points ofview, including advocates for regulation of intelligentmachines. It will weaken the Summit to exclude thispoint of view.
Then it would be better if the Summit were not held at all. Nanotech,
AGI e
On 5/10/06, Bill Hibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include
any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent
machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you
of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the
Summit
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Hibbard" Subject: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of
AI
I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include
any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent
machines. The purpose of this message is not to co
I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include
any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent
machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you
of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the
Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note
25 matches
Mail list logo
