Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Of course I have no idea what's happened since 1984. It's probably proprietary. Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On May 8, 2017 10:47 PM, "Marcus Daniels" wrote: Until that robot can acquire the hockey stick and exercise its mirror neuron, the work must continue!

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I KNOW! That was such a compelling feeling... The robot's *apparent* long-suffering patience added to its anthropomorphic features in making me want to imagine it to have more "humanity" than it possibly could. Taking the hockey stick away from his tormentor or giving him a good smackdown

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Until that robot can acquire the hockey stick and exercise its mirror neuron, the work must continue! From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 10:32 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject:

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I am risking citing authorities again. Marc Raibert left Carnegie Mellon, founded the Leg Lab at MIT, then founded Boston Dynamics. Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly. Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14,

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I guess a measure of how life-like it is, is how much you are waiting for the robot to haul off and smack the guy with the hockey stick. Some kind of mirror neuron thing, maybe. > On May 9, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Glen writes: > > "At some point,

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: "At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson) territory? ... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous system is mappable to the computation going on around us" While Boston Dynamics has remarkable

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson) territory? ... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous system is mappable to the computation going on around us. If consciousness isn't compressible because it's an artifact of that mapping, then faster neurons

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Seems to me there's a question of dynamic range, temporally speaking. In classical computers, that is dealt with by separating exponents and mantissas as in floating point arithmetic. If everything compresses by 7 order of magnitude, then perhaps it would just be a matter of adding 7 more

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

What if faster firing tightened a brain's coupling to its environment, rather than loosening it? That would suggest that brains with fast neurons would be _less_ tolerant of ambiguity, not more. One couldn't think deeply about anything because the environment would keep you locked in a kind

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Fantastic pattern recognition, Roger. We can combine anti-emminence-based concept of white privilege with Kazynski's (negative) interpretation of the more tightly integrated social fabric ("will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: "Those of us who tolerate (especially drastic) semantic shifts, on the fly, may survive through any Singularity." A fun fact that I ran across last week: A superconducting neuron made of Josephson Junctions could be 7 orders of magnitude faster than those in the human central

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Harking back to an earlier complaint from Marcus about blatant and lazy appeals to authority, which may have been in another thread altogether, this http://andrewgelman.com/2017/05/07/discussion-lee-jussim-simine-vazire-eminence-junk-science-blind-reviewing/ introduced me to the formulation

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Coincidentally, given the topic of [SG]AI and the semantic grounding of rhetorical terms: The meaning of life in a world without work

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On 5/6/17 10:52 AM, Joe Spinden wrote: The talk of who went to what school seems beside the point. The benefits of Pre-K seem indisputable to me.. As do the benefits of reduced sugar consumption. For those with limited access to the basics of modern education, I think Pre-K is a great

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On funding Pre-K, Joe writes: "anything would be better than nothing" >From a parent's perspective, if there are whole categories of support services >that are inadequate or collapsing perhaps the best thing is not to live here, >or if the means are sufficient, use private services. >From

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

The talk of who went to what school seems beside the point. The benefits of Pre-K seem indisputable to me.. As do the benefits of reduced sugar consumption. I did not focus on the benefits of Pre-K vis-a-vis the proposed tax because I was never convinced the administration could competently

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes: "I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed School, is a big proponent of pre-K. Merle said that I missed the point and that Jeff Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard. I said that Ted K went to Berkeley to make the case that

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes: "I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet. " In a state where the governor vetos funding for higher-education across the board and defunds the legislature? If we believe her, the

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Let's summarize. I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet. I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed School, is a big proponent of pre-K. Merle said that I missed the

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes: "Which notorious person went to which university? Why?" It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a question of correct vs. incorrect. Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give but I will for completeness. 1. A

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Which notorious person went to which university? Why? Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On May 5, 2017 11:50 PM, "Merle Lefkoff" wrote: > It's NOT irrelevant, Frank! > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > >> >> Heh, just in case

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

It's NOT irrelevant, Frank! On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > > Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission > of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT. > All y'all are way smarter than me. And I

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I was talking to someone about a conference they attended and a technical discussion they had with an individual at the conference.He said he found the individual interesting -- a distinguished-looking older gentleman. Eventually he asked him about his affiliation. He said he was

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes: < ... but "Evil" might be one of many things depending on the reserved lexicon of the speaker... Social Conservatives would place LGBT and Abortion Rights and Gun Control on their list of "Evil" .. > Yeah, overloaded local dictionaries as a lazy cache for a community's

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Marcus - I personally am a fan of "late binding" in natural language. If I defer it too late, it can get me in trouble... Trump got a lot of slack from me along the way because of this. I can't tell if "Trump is clever to observe that people ... " or his pattern matching skills lead him to

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes: "I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to Marcus PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it differently." Simple logic programs can be nothing but a conjunction of predicates. In this situation the predicates would be the

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT. All y'all are way smarter than me. And I am very grateful for your presence, interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the forum. I

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen - Is this your version of the Serenity Prayer? If so, it is a nicely novel one! I feel *measureably* (if only fractionally) smarter when I manage to (mostly) follow many of the deeply thoughtful discussions here... your's and Marcus' most most immediately. I could easily list a

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

No, because it's irrelevant. Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On May 5, 2017 2:36 PM, "Marcus Daniels" wrote: > Frank writes: > > > > “In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy > of which celebrity went to what school.” > > > > Because

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes: “In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy of which celebrity went to what school.” Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong? His ideas resonate with whitelash voters. I find that scary. Marcus

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards, forums, etc. Use of irony can cause problems. Even if most people know what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say. I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that Ted

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Now would be a good time for a long conversation about the dimensionality of reality and its navigation, because I just can't bear the next thing I have to do. That danged REPL loop is just blinking at me now. Lower case evil and all that is fine. -Original Message- From: Friam

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to navigate reality. On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels wrote: >Glen writes: > >< If a listener abstracts their

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: < If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a speaker abstracting their self. > Steve writes: < Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific. I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended. I specifically

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

FWIW, I would try not to over-parse "rhetoric" any more than I over-parse "abstract". All informational language is persuasive and all persuasive language is informative. The distinction is false, I think. We see this most egregiously in the saying: If you want to learn something, read

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen/Marcus - As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing match here. The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be blinding but engaging. The content, when I feel I have parsed it down all the way is usually enlightening and informative. Rather than try

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

"Linux is useless without a shell like GNU. But that doesn't mean those artifacts are somehow abstractions." There's abstract as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence". A computer program not really physical. It can be represented as physical

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen write: "Their interpretation of their distributed artifact is decoupled from, abstracted from, their audience's interpretation of the same artifact. And they bear some responsibility for that decoupling." Listeners bear responsibility too. Marcus

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

But that's not what you said. You said they distribute abstractions, which they clearly do not ... cannot because that's nonsense. One cannot distribute an abstraction. The reason one can _experience_ discovering an unintended _use_ for an artifact is because these things that get

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: < I disagree. These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract. When you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to Wikileaks, that's personal. When you spend 1/2

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On 05/05/2017 09:24 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded. Heh, yes, I know. That was partly the point of referring to it in this context. >8^D Nonetheless, the point I inferred is still there. > To certain technologists,

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: " But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed." I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded. To certain technologists, there is the view that our

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Hm. But enlightenment (IMO) only happens in a personal sense. And "personal" implies tight couplings. Eg Dick Cheney being OK with gay people because his daughter is gay, despite him being evil in every other non-personal aspect of his decades in power. Or Milo _finally_ realizing how bad

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: "Being _in_ the world means being tightly coupled to it so that you feel the immediate consequences of your words and hear your own words repeated from others' mouths. If you're not tightly coupled, then you're at risk." Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well, I did get a chance to listen to CArne Ross' TED talk after Marcus pointed him out. (Nothing further, yet.) And he made one comment in that talk that I like, yet completely disagree with ... something like "it's up to each and every person to implement policy" ... or diplomacy or

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen - I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but doesn't it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive speech (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended to *persuade* and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion), then

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well said, Glen. At the same time, some of us who are not anarchists (I'm still on the journey) understand that the actions of many who call themselves Democrats, or Republicans, or President or Congressmen or CEOs--just a few seemingly less extreme examples--all exemplify the "different

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

OK. So, the answer is "No". Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists". Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause. So it is with Islam, libertarians,

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are able to discern. And many that I know understand that in the long run, non-violence is the winning strategy. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

“The alternative new world vision is one of community and sharing--because technology will not get us out of the profound implications of rapid climate change.” Maybe after some big extinction event. Until then, how about some holes? There are some respectable numbers here compared to 10

[FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Though definitely less scifi than it used to be, Ted's prediction is clearly wrong in the most important part: increasing specialization. The distinction missing (here -- I haven't read the manifesto) is the distinction between special vs general intelligence. GI is still mysterious and we're