On 10/27/06, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
Orwell's 1984 predicted a world where a totalitarian government watched your
every move. What he failed to predict is that it would happen in a democracy.
People want surveillence. You want cameras in businesses for better security.
e
From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:30:52 AM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
Matt,
This is a textbook example of the way that all discussions of the
consequences of a singularity tend to go.
What
don't cooperate...
Vinge describes the singularity as the end of the human era. I think
your nervousness is justified.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message
From: deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:
On 10/27/06, deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All this talk about trying to make a SAI Friendly makes me very nervous.
You're giving a superhumanly powerful being a set of motivations without an
underlying rationale. That's a religion.
The only rational thing to do is to build an SAI without
ctober 26, 2006 7:56:06 PMSubject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
All this talk about trying to make a SAI Friendly
makes me very nervous. You're giving a superhumanly powerful being a set
of motivations without an underlying rationale. That's a
religion.
The only rati
On 10/26/06, deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
The only rational thing to do is to build an SAI without any preconceived
ideas of right and wrong, and let it figure it out for itself. What makes
you think that protecting humanity is the greatest good in the universe?
(...)
Hundreds of t
Matt Mahoney wrote:
- Original Message
From: Starglider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:21:45 AM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
What I'm not sure about is that you gain anything from 'neura
deering wrote:
All this talk about trying to make a SAI Friendly makes me very
nervous. You're giving a superhumanly powerful being a set of
motivations without an underlying rationale. That's a religion.
Your comments are a little baffling: what do you mean by giving it
motivations withou
All this talk about trying to make a SAI Friendly
makes me very nervous. You're giving a superhumanly powerful being a set
of motivations without an underlying rationale. That's a
religion.
The only rational thing to do is to build an SAI
without any preconceived ideas of right and wrong
- Original Message
From: Starglider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:21:45 AM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
>What I'm not sure about is that you gain anything from 'neural' or
>'
HI,
About hybrid/integrative architecturs, Michael Wilson said:
I'd agree that it looks good when you first start attacking the problem.
Classic ANNs have some demonstrated competencies, classic symbolic
AI has some different demonstrated competencies, as do humans and
existing non-AI software.
Matt Mahoney wrote:
>> 'Access to' isn't the same thing as 'augmented with' of course, but I'm
>> not sure exactly what you mean by this (and I'd rather wait for you to
>> explain than guess).
>
> I was referring to one possible implementation of AGI consisting of part
> neural
> or brainlike imp
- Original Message
From: Starglider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:32:27 PM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
>All AGIs implemented on general purpose computers will have access to
>'conve
My apologies for the duplication of my previous post; I thought my mail
client failed to send the original, but actually it just dropped the echo
from the server.
Matt Mahoney wrote:
> Michael Wilson wrote:
>> Hybrid approaches (e.g. what Ben's probably envisioning) are almost certainly
>> better
- Original Message
From: Starglider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:54:47 PM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
>Hybrid approaches (e.g. what Ben's probably envisioning) are almost certainly
>bett
Starglider wrote:
I have no wish to rehash the fairly futile and extremely disruptive
discussion of Loosemore's assertions that occurred on the SL4 mailing
list. I am willing to address the implicit questions/assumptions about my
own position.
You may not have noticed that at the end of my pre
I'll try and avoid a repeat of the lenghtly, fairly futile and extremely
disruptive
discussion of Loosemore's assertions that occurred on the SL4 mailing
list. I am willing to address the implicit questions/assumptions about my
own position.
Richard Loosemore wrote:
> The contribution of complex
Loosemore wrote:
> The motivational system of some types of AI (the types you would
> classify as tainted by complexity) can be made so reliable that the
> likelihood of them becoming unfriendly would be similar to the
> likelihood of the molecules of an Ideal Gas suddenly deciding to split
> int
I have no wish to rehash the fairly futile and extremely disruptive
discussion of Loosemore's assertions that occurred on the SL4 mailing
list. I am willing to address the implicit questions/assumptions about my
own position.
Richard Loosemore wrote:
> The contribution of complex systems science i
Starglider wrote:
You know my position on 'complex systems science'; yet to do anything
useful, unlikely to ever help in AGI, would create FAI-incompatible
systems even if it could.
And you know my position is that this is completely wrong. For the sake
of those who do not know about this d
On 23 Oct 2006 at 13:26, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Whereas, my view is that it is precisely the effective combination of
> probabilistic logic with complex systems science (including the notion of
> emergence) that will lead to, finally, a coherent and useful theoretical
> framework for designing an
Though I have remained often-publiclyopposed to emergence and 'fuzzy' design since first realising what the true
consequences (of the heavily enhanced-GA-based system I was workingon at the time) were, as far as I know I haven't made that particularmistake again.Whereas, my view is that it is preci
On 23 Oct 2006 at 12:59, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>>> Ditto with just about anything else that's at all innovative -- e.g. was
>>> Einstein's General Relativity a fundamental new breakthrough, or just a
>>> tweak on prior insights by Riemann and Hilbert?
>>
>> I wonder if this is a sublime form of
Hi, > Ditto with just about anything else that's at all innovative --
e.g. was> Einstein's General Relativity a fundamental new breakthrough, or just a> tweak on prior insights by Riemann and Hilbert?I wonder if this is a sublime form of irony for a horribly naïve and
arrogant analogy to GR I drew
On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Michael,
I think your summary of the situation is in many respects accurate;
but, an interesting aspect you don't mention has to do with the
disclosure of technical details...
In the case of Novamente, we have sufficient academic credibil
On 23 Oct 2006 at 10:39, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> In the case of Novamente, we have sufficient academic credibility and know-
> how that we could easily publish a raft of journal papers on the details of
> Novamente's design and preliminary experimentation.
That bumps your objective success probabil
Michael,I think your summary of the situation is in many respects accurate; but, an interesting aspect you don't mention has to do with the disclosure of technical details...In the case of Novamente, we have sufficient academic credibility and know-how that we could easily publish a raft of journal
I think Mark's observation is correct. Anti-aging is far easier to fund than AGI because there are a lot more people interested in preserving their own lives than in creating AGI Furthermore, the M-prize money is to fund a **prize**, not directly to fund research on some particular project...
On 22 Oct 2006 at 17:22, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> It is a lot easier I imagine to find many people willing and able to
> donate on the order of $100/month indefinitely to such a cause than to
> find one or a few people to put up the entire amount. I am sure that has
> already been kicked around. W
Well, there is funding like in the Methuselah Mouse project. I am one of
"the 300" myself. With enough interested >people it should not be that
hard to raise $5 million even on a very long term project. Most of us seem
to think that >conquering aging will take longer than AGI but there are
Hi, I know you must be frustrated with fund raising, but investor
relunctance is understandable from the perspective that for decadesnow there has always been someone who said we're N years from fullblown AI, and then N years passed with nothing but narrow AI progress.Of course, someone will end up
Japan, despite a lot of interest back in 5th Generation computer days seems to have a difficult time innovating in advanced software. I am not sure why.
I talked recently, at an academic conference, with the guy who directs robotics research labs within ATR, the primary Japanese government resea
rmal sense) problem.
Peter
From: Ben Goertzel
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006
3:36 PM
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity]
Defining the Singularity
Hi,
I know you must be frustrated with fund raising, but investor
relunct
On 10/22/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know you must be frustrated with fund raising, but investor
> relunctance is understandable from the perspective that for decades
> now there has always been someone who said we're N years from full
> blown AI, and then N years passed with
On 10/22/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This particular potential investor is "still thinking about it" ... he's
currently on vacation and will discuss further when he gets back. Of course
this was an unusual conversation due to the amputation theme (and the amount
of wine being con
On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:Hi, Mike Deering wrote: If you really were interested in working on the Singularity you would be designing your education plan around getting a job at the NSA. The NSA has the budget, the technology, the skill set, and the motivation to build the S
Hi, Mike Deering wrote:
If you really were interested in working on the
Singularity you would be designing your education plan around getting a job at
the NSA. The NSA has the budget, the technology, the skill set, and the
motivation to build the Singularity. Everyone else, universities, priva
Well, there is funding like in the Methuselah Mouse project. I am one of "the 300" myself. With enough interested people it should not be that hard to raise $5 million even on a very long term project. Most of us seem to think that conquering aging will take longer than AGI but there are fairl
All this talk about proving something before doing
it is beside the point. We, as a species, as a government, as scientists,
as individuals, never prove anything before we try it. We just
don't. Think of the many examples of new stuff we have done. Have we
proved any of them would be saf
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Of late I feel a lot of despair because I see lots of brilliant people
> seemingly mired in endlessly rehashing what-ifs, arcane philosophical
> points and willing to put off actually creating greater than human
> intelligence and transhuman tech indefinitely until they can
On Oct 20, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Michael Anissimov wrote:Sometimes, Samantha, it seems like you have little faith in anypossible form of intelligence, and that the only way for one to besafe/happy is to be isolated from everything. I sometimes get thisimpression from libertarians (not to say that I'm
On 10/22/06, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am sorry you seem to have utterly missed the point of my remarks.The world heads straight to destruction and all of us toward true deadwhile we daydream of the wonders a superintelligent being we do notknow how to build could do if it was to
On Oct 20, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Michael Anissimov wrote:
Samantha,
Considering the state of the world today I don't see how changes
sufficient to be really helpful can be anything but disruptive of the
status quo. Being non-disruptive per se is a non-goal.
Ah, that's what it seems like! But
Michael Anissimov, as usual, we are speaking past each other. I
actually agree with you much more than you give me credit for. With the
exponential pace of technological advancement and the new powers inherent in
superhuman intelligence, and molecular engineering, the future can't help but
Samantha,
Considering the state of the world today I don't see how changes
sufficient to be really helpful can be anything but disruptive of the
status quo. Being non-disruptive per se is a non-goal.
Ah, that's what it seems like! But I think we'd be surprised at the
good a superintelligenc
On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Michael Anissimov wrote:
Mike,
On 10/10/06, deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Going beyond the definition of Singularity we can make some
educated guesses
about the most likely conditions under which the Singularity will
occur.
Due to technological synergy,
Mike,
On 10/10/06, deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Going beyond the definition of Singularity we can make some educated guesses
about the most likely conditions under which the Singularity will occur.
Due to technological synergy, the creation of STHI will happen coincident
with the achievem
Singularity is a word that someone made up with a definition/meaning that
someone advanced from an existing knowledge context and somewhere along the
way society accepted some definition and that term itself. You could just
as well call it zoombalabala if society would have accepted it (there a
The word 'Singularity' in the futurism context,
rather than the mathematical or science context, is a label for something in the
real world. Something that someone noticed and said, "Hey, we need a word
for this!" That someone was Verner Vinge and what he noticed was that
technology, due i
hmm. Someone will please give me a gentle nudge when something is discussed here of actual import to achieving singularity. In the meantime think I will take a siesta.- samanthaOn Oct 10, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Richard Leis wrote:The general consensus also depends on the context for which it is being u
-Original Message Follows
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:24:17 -0400
Indeed...
What we are running into here is simply the pove
The general consensus also depends on the context for which it is being used. When discussing the Singularity among AGI professionals, "smarter-than-human intelligence" can probably be assumed. Perhaps it would be more useful for the commentator to describe which "Singularity" they are discussing
Michael makes a good point that it's intellectually permissible to
argue ad nauseam over side claims but that it's still important to
have a general consensus on an explicit description of the very idea
that would allow almost every literate person to elicit the concept of
the Singularity in the f
On 10/10/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
My problem with Michael's original definition was the statement about
producing a genetically engineered child that was smarter-than-human, and
allowing that to be defined as the Singularity. I think in order for a point
in this recursive se
On 10/10/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hank,On 10/10/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> The all-encompassing definition of the Singularity is the point at which an> intelligence gains the ability to recursively self-improve the underlying> computational processes of its intell
On the other hand (to add a little levity to the conversation), a very
avid 2012-ite I knew last year informed me that
"You should just mix eight ounces of Robitussin with eight ounces of
vodka and drink it fast -- you'll find your own private Singularity,
right there!!"
;-pp
On 10/10/06, Lúci
On 10/10/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
If next year a quad-core pc becomes a self-improving AI in a basement
in Atlanta, then disappears a hour later into another dimension, then
so far as the rest of the world is concerned, the Singularity never
happened.
(...)
Yep, I also tend to
Indeed...
What we are running into here is simply the poverty of compact formal
definitions.
AI researchers long ago figured out that it's difficult to create a
compact formal definition of "chair" or "arch" or table...
Ditto for "Singularity", not surprisingly...
This doesn't mean compact def
On 10/10/06, Ben Goertzel wrote:
But from the perspective of deeper understanding, I don't see why it's
critical to agree on a single definition, or that there be a compact
and crisp definition. It's a complex world and these are complex
phenomena we're talking about, as yet dimly understood.
Hank,
On 10/10/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The all-encompassing definition of the Singularity is the point at which an
intelligence gains the ability to recursively self-improve the underlying
computational processes of its intelligence.
I already have that ability -- I'm just ver
"A single genetically engineered child born with a substantiallysmarter-than-human IQ would constitute a Singularity"
That is a flaw in your definition.
The all-encompassing definition of the Singularity is the point at which an intelligence gains the ability to recursively self-improve the und
Hi,
The reason that so many in the intellectual community see
Singularity discussion as garbage is because there is so little
definitional consensus that it's close to impossible to determine
what's actually being discussed.
I doubt this...
I think the reason that Singularity discussion is di
The Singularity definitions being presented here are incredibly
confusing and contradictory. If I were a newcomer to the community
and saw this thread, I'd say that this word "Singularity" is so poorly
defined, it's useless. Everyone is talking past each other. As Nick
Hay has pointed out, the
63 matches
Mail list logo
