--- Alan Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > om > > In this article I will quote and address some of the > issues raised > against my previous posting. I will then continue > with the planned > discussion of the current state of AI, I will also > survey some of the > choices available to the singularitarian community > with regards these > developments. Specifically, I will outline a > manhattan project style AI > development effort to reflect the urgency I feel is > warranted by the > situation. > > om > > Tom says: > """"" > This is a *very* strong claim, considering how > complex > intelligence is and how much had yet to be fully > understood. > """"" > > The human genome project has found that human DNA > only contains around > 30,000 genes. While it is true that there are > probably an equal number > of important regulatory sequences including codes > for RNA strands which > act directly as enzymes, there remains a fairly > strict upper bound on > the complexity of the entire human organism. In AI, > there are two > sources of program complexity. First, there's the > general AI algorithm, > and second there is the system which the AI must > control. I agree that I > omitted a treatment of the input and output > modalities. I did so because > they are negligable in this context. Yes, the brain > does an a great deal > of sensory pre-processing, and indeed this is very > important to it's > performance, however, each modality operates in > strictly constant time, > each "frame" of information is processed with a > predictably low latency. > The total complexity involved is strictly related to > the bandwidth of > the information channel. Therefore it cancels out > and the only > interesting variable which remains is the AI kernel. > =)
Even if there is a hard upper bound on human complexity (humans can absorb data from the environment and so can be much more complex than their genomes), that doesn't help us if we don't understand the information. We already have all the genomic information needed to build a human, but we still don't understand a great deal of it. > Quoth tom: > > """""""" > The "tabula rasa" hypothesis has been debunked every > which way from Sunday. See > http://207.210.67.162/~striz/docs/tooby-1992-pfc.pdf. > """""""" > > Well, it seems that you responded before you > finished reading the > sentence. The next part was "for the most part". I did read that part, and I'm still highly skeptical. The human brain structure is universal across all cultures, so it must be encoded somewhere in the genome. > While I agree that > there are several aspects of the human psyche that > are clearly based > upon genetically transmitted evolutionary > adaptations, these adaptations > have been localized through anatomical studies to > unique, highly > specialized regions of neural tissue such as the > hypothalamus and the > amygdala. Are you trying to say that each and every one of, say, these human universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm) is encoded in a few "unique, highly specialized regions of neural tissue"? The amygdala and hypothalamus are shared across all mammals, with presumably roughly the same structural characteristics. The vast majority of human culture- music, art, storytelling, organized large-scale governments, science, etc.- isn't found in any other species. > However, when we look at the primary > neural pathways including > the thalamus, hypocampus, and the basal ganglia (not > to mention the > cortex), we find a highly regular anatomical > structure. We can safely > assume these structures do not carry specific > information regarding > genetic adaptations and is, for all practical > purposes a very close > approximation to the tabula rasa. Did you even bother to look at the article I linked? In the first ten pages or so, the authors explain in detail how the standard model in the social sciences is exactly what you specified- the brain as a "general purpose computer" which isn't preprogrammed to do anything in particular. They then spend the next twenty-odd pages explaining why that model is horrifically broken. > The closest thing we can find to an exception to > this claim is the > visual cortex which is fairly specialized for > processing visual > information. -- It has additional layers not found > in other cortical > regions. Even these specializations do not appear to > contain any genetic > programming. (laughs) If something is found to develop in the human anatomy regardless of where and when said anatomy is located, that is *de facto* proof of genetic programming. The information that says "build these specialized brain layers here" has to come from somewhere- how does the brain know to build a visual cortex, rather than a puddle of random gloop? Since the brain develops most in the womb (where environmental influences are minimal), this information must come from genetics. > Tom: > """"""""" > Our brains are *much* more complex than a simple > concept-abstraction-and-pattern-recognition device. > Such a device, for instance, would be unable to add > two and two, or create a whole new category of > objects > it has never seen. > """"""""" > > ;) > > Wherever did you get the impression that imagination > and human-style > mathematics is distinct from concept abstraction and > pattern > recognition? I could go on for days explaining the > evidence supporting > this idea as well as an explanation of how > perception and imagination > are actually the same thing but I don't have nearly > enough time to do > that now and it would make this post much longer > than anyone is willing > to read. -- I will if I have to though! =\ There is a very important difference between perceiving an abstract concept and inventing an abstract concept. For one thing, the latter is much harder- we all can perceive the concept of a "butterfly", but I doubt that anyone on this mailing list would have invented the idea of a butterfly from scratch if butterfly-esque insects never existed. > tom, once more: > """""""" > This assumes that the pattern-matcher saturates with > repetition of stuff it has seen before. But the > universe contains *much more* information than any > human could possibly pattern-match- it's simply so > darn big. > """""""" > > two responses: > > 1. Not if you break it down first, it doesn't. ;) (sigh) You might as well read through all of Shakespeare, find that it contains only boring old English letters, and declare that the book is worthless, since it contains nothing you haven't seen before. Pattern recognition happens on every level of organization. > 2. How about just the information contained in your > neighborhood and > accessible to human style senses? Are you going to > claim that is too > much for your computer even using a relatively poor > encoding scheme? Even within the realm of everyday human activity, I doubt a pattern-perception-and-recognition device, no matter how sophisticated, could get along in modern society. Even high school students are asked to invent patterns which they have not yet perceived from pre-existing building blocks. > Tom: > """""""""" > Every possible strong AI architecture may be > *capable* > of absorbing new information and matching it to old > patterns, but that does not mean that that is *all* > it > does. > """"""""""" > > Yes, that is all it does. All AIs will be, at their > core, pattern > matching machines. Every one of them. You can then > procede to tack on > any other function which you believe will improve > the AI's performance > but in every case you will be able to strip it down > to pretty much a > bare pattern matching system and still obtain a > truly formidable > intelligence! So, basically, you're saying "You're wrong, so there!". > Matt inscribed: > """"""""""" > When can we expect a demo? > """"""""""" > > Six months after I somehow obtain 10 megabucks. =\ This is an interesting question. Suppose I gave you ten megabucks tomorrow (NOTE: I don't actually have ten megabucks!) to develop an AGI. How would you spend the money? > Matt: > """""""""" > People with autism lack the ability to recognize > faces, which leads to > delayed language and social development during > childhood. However they > do not lack symbolic thought. From > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism > """""""""" > > Okay, I'll respond to that after you re-read the > part you quoted about > the autistic people in question being "high > functioning". Those people > merely have an impaired ability to conceptualized. I > was referring to > cases of profound autism. In the cases you refer to, > the impairment of > symbolic thought is evidenced in the reduced ability > to form symbolic > concepts for complex things such as "person" or > "face". > > > Matt regarding the space complexity of the AI: > """""""""" > The relationship is a little more complex. I > believe it has to do with > === message truncated === - Tom ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ----- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=26687644-66263e
