>
> > The nature of neuroscience research doesn't really differentiate
> between the two at present. In order to understand WHAT a brain part
> does, we have to understand HOW it, and all structures connected to it
> function. We need to understand the inputs and the outputs, and that's
> all
Brad Wyble wrote:
> The fact that it is complicated does not mean it cannot be replicated in a
>different substrate (and like Ben, I think it would be a misapplication of effort to
>try).
>
[quote left in orrigional form]
Yep,
Tell that to the brain uploading crowd. ;)
> > I don't care _HO
> Higher-order function representations are not robust in the sense that
> neural representations probably are: they aren't redundant at all, one
> error will totally change the meaning. They're not brainlike in any
> sense. But maybe (if my hypothesis is right) they provide a great
> foundatio
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > I like to distinguish two kinds of specialized mechanisms:
> >
> > 1) those that are autonomous
> >
> > 2) those that build specialized functionality on a foundation of
> > general-intelligence-oriented structures and dynamics
> >
> > The AI field, so far, has focused mai
>
> Not exactly. It isn't that I think we should give up on AGI, but rather that
> we should be consciously planning for it to take several decades to get
> there. We should still tackle the problems in front of us, instead of giving
> up on real AI work altogether. But we need to get past the ide
> > I believe that the precision with which digital computers can do things,
> > will allow intelligence to be implemented more simply on them
> than in the
> > brain. This precision allows entirely different structures and
> dynamics to
> > be utilized, in digital AGI systems as opposed to brain
>
> [META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own
> standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and
> ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
I think we're suffering from emacs issues, I'm using elm.
>
> Iff the brain is not unique in its c
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> I like to distinguish two kinds of specialized mechanisms:
>
> 1) those that are autonomous
>
> 2) those that build specialized functionality on a foundation of
> general-intelligence-oriented structures and dynamics
>
> The AI field, so far, has focused mainly on Type 1. But
[META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own
standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and
ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
Brad Wyble wrote:
> The situation for understanding a single neuron is somewhat disastrous.
...
> I'm just
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Brad Wyble wrote:
> . . .
> Incorrect. The cortex has genetically pre-programmed systems.
> It cannot be said that is a matrix loaded with software from
> subcortical structures..
> . . .
Yes, but there is a very interesting experiment with rewiring
brains of young ferrets s
>
>
> Brad Wyble wrote, replying to Alan Grimes:
> > I'm just trying to give you a taste of the sophistications that
> > are relevant to brain function and cannot be glossed over.
> >
>
> I know you were replying to Alan not me, but I'll make a comment anyway ;)
>
> The unstable nature of neur
> Say I'm designing an AGI architecture (which I am btw, but it is
irrelevant
> to this discussion :) and I want to preprocess audio data so that speech
is
> already parsed by the time it enters the AI's cognitive modules. All I
need
> to do is obtain a preexisting natural language parser program
Brad Wyble wrote, replying to Alan Grimes:
> I'm just trying to give you a taste of the sophistications that
> are relevant to brain function and cannot be glossed over.
>
I know you were replying to Alan not me, but I'll make a comment anyway ;)
The unstable nature of neuroscience knowledge is
> Do you see another option for simplification?
I am not starting from a foundational concept of "brain emulation", so I'm
not really faced with the problem of simplifying the brain.
> Maybe. Maybe not. To be honest, I think most people in this field
> have a bad
> habit of using "general intell
> The thing that gives me the most confidence in you Ben is that
> you made it to round 2 and you're still swinging. You've
> personally learned the hard lessons of AGI design
Well, some of them ;) I'm sure there are plenty of hard lessons ahead!!
-- ben
> and its
> pitfalls that most
>
> Brad Wyble wrote:
> > > Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
> > > ways than the brain, it seems...
>
> > > The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple processing
> >> pattern and then repeating it millions of times.
>
>
> > Alan, I strongly suggest
> OTOH, at least Novamente has enough internal complexity to reach
> territory that hasn't already been explored by classical AI research. I
> don't expect it to "wake up", but I expect it will be a lot more
> productive than those "One True Simple Formula For Intelligence"-type
> projects.
Ye
> Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your familiarity with neuroscience
before making such claims in the future. I'm not sure what simplified model
of the neuron you are using, but be assured that there are many layers of
complexity of function within even a simple neuron, let alone in network
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> However, I don't agree with your quantitative estimate that an AGI has to
be
> orders of magnitude bigger than any software project ever attempted.
>
> I agree that many people underestimate the problem, but I think you
> overestimate the problem. And mis-estimate it. I thin
Brad Wyble wrote:
> > Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
> > ways than the brain, it seems...
> > The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple processing
>> pattern and then repeating it millions of times.
> Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your fa
>
>
> Well, we invented our own specialized database system (in effect) but not
> our own network protocol.
>
> In each case, it's a tough decision whether to reuse or reimplement. The
> right choice always comes down to the nasty little details...
>
> The biggest Ai waste of time has probabl
3 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: AGI Complexity (WAS: RE: [agi] "doubling time" watcher.)
>
>
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > And I'm a huge advocate of the "integrative" approach.
> > My feeling is that maybe half of the ingredients of
>
> The brain is actually fantasticly simple...
>
> It is nothing compared with the core of a linux operating system
> (kernel+glibc+gcc).
>
> Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of
> ways than the brain, it seems...
>
> The brain is very RISCy... using a relativel
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> And I'm a huge advocate of the "integrative" approach.
> My feeling is that maybe half of the ingredients of
> an AGI are things that were created for other (usually
> narrow AI) purposes and can be used, not "off the shelf",
> but with only moderate rather than severe modifi
Ben Goertzel wrote:
But of course, none of us *really know*.
Technically, I believe you mean that you *think* none of us really know,
but you don't *know* that none of us really know. To *know* that none of
us really know, you would have to really know.
--
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
I agree with your qualitative point that a computationally efficient
intelligence has got to consist of a combination of specialized systems
(operating tightly coupled togetherin a common framework, and with many
commonalities and overlaps).
However, I don't agree with your quantitative estimate
> From recent comments here I can see there are still a lot of people out
> there who think that building an AGI is a relatively modest-size
> project, and the key to success is simply uncovering some new insight
> or technique that has been overlooked thus far.
I would agree with that though th
day, February 18, 2003 3:20 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: AGI Complexity (WAS: RE: [agi]
"doubling time" watcher.)
Billy, I agree that AGI is a complicated architecture of
hundreds of separarate software solutions. But all of these solutions
have utility in other softwar
Billy, I agree that AGI is a complicated architecture of
hundreds of separarate software solutions. But all of these solutions have
utility in other software environments and progress is being made by tens of
thousands of programmers each working on improving some little software function
f
29 matches
Mail list logo
