81–90 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Within the context of Go, what meaning does the Go playing machine lack?
All of it. It has no idea that it's playing a board game, or even what a board game is. That it's even playing Go is a human interpretation of what the machine is doing. Granted, we gave it that interpretation in the form of software instructions. But to the machine, it makes no difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, it seems there is no manner of detailing that will convince people that it's plausible. I'm honestly unaware as to why people can't fathom it. It's a systems issue. If you want to resolve a systems issue, you need people who have worked on complex systems. Having done the research myself, having the computational models in front of me, and currently developing iterative capability levels, I can assure…
I just want to say: I wholeheartedly support you and any and all research in this direction. I think AI is and will be hugely important. You think I will be surprised how "general" the AIs are. I think you will be surprised how similar to human bodies you have to make them for them to approach a human definition of "general". This is the only sense in which I think AGIs are impossible... not that they couldn't be fab…
If you're capable and that's what you see, why not integrate it into a conceptual model and then a computational model and then write the code for it? When I say its possible I mean to say that, once you have the right model, you can write any code you want to make it a reality. The capability and hardware are already here today and more is on the horizon. One of the stacks I have lying about are spec sheets and white papers regarding Nvidia's GPU microarchitectures, HSA architectures, latency white papers, etc. I was literally waiting on their new microarchitecture to experiment with some new concepts. Future chips on the horizon make me :) deeply. So, unlike the past, the compute power is there and more is coming quite soon.
I scanned through 194-209. Excellent analysis and construction of a framework. I have hundreds of pages of this kind of analysis that I performed in the initial stages of my inquiry. This is excellent work. The thing is, you need to begin constructing models and theories from it. Start prototyping code and see how it fits together with other subsystems and aspects of your architecture and theory. You really just have to get in there and start stringing together code and start dissecting and trashing things that don't fit and locking in things that do fit.
My perspective is that the paper highlights a fundamental first step of how you approach AGI : By reasoning through your thought process, cognitive functions, and interaction in the world.
I would love to take you up on that offer and will when I return to the bay area. I always enjoy a good conversation on these matters. I'll take tea :)
For now, I'm in a bit of an undisclosed location doing dev. I Decided it would be best to get away from the high noise level in the valley while I focus on my R&D effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, it seems there is no manner of detailing that will convince people that it's plausible. I'm honestly unaware as to why people can't fathom it. It's a systems issue. If you want to resolve a systems issue, you need people who have worked on complex systems. Having done the research myself, having the computational models in front of me, and currently developing iterative capability levels, I can assure…
I just wanted to back you up, because I have a funny feeling you'll be criticized (common for frontierspeople) and I was thinking a lot about this very thing just yesterday. I've been a computer scientist for 25 years, and I've always tried to approach everything on the most basic terms of information, transformation, and IO. I revisit this fundamental way of conceptualizing daily, no matter what problem I'm working…
Indeed. Breaking things down to their most raw and simplistic forms allow you to build them back up as you see fit or translate something from one domain to another. Through the deconstruction effort, you maintain the formula and methods to construct it back with confidence :)
> Like you, I can't fathom what the objection is to AGI. A human body is complex, but human behavior is simply not that complex in the grand scheme. I have never encountered or thought of any theoretical difficulty with an algorithm mimicking human behavior, or the behavior of a vastly more intelligent sci-fi AI for that matter.
Well, it depends how deep underneath it all you want to go. You can create a mimic machine or you can really get underneath the hidden layers and concepts and get at the root and create a truly artificial version of something. You have to be willing to dig deep and pursue answers wherever they are to be found even when they contradict your fundamental world view.
> I don't care whether AGI has internal subjective experience. At least, I don't care beyond circular philosophical musing. I certainly don't care as regards the construction of AI, because it has no bearing on the construction of AI for the foreseeable future.
Good, you have to be willing to put all your preconceived notions out to pasture. If you come to have a solid model that includes x,y,z or excludes it, it shouldn't matter as long as the model functions and is true to a stand-alone computational engine.
> AGI is going to sneak up on everybody incrementally, and intelligent people will still be arguing about whether it's possible, even while it happens.
Yeah, I kept asking myself why hasn't someone just gotten in the pits and started stringing together and forming a system. I got tired of asking questions and yelling out on an airhorn "this way everybody". So, I spent ~3 years researching the matter, created conceptual and computational models, and am now developing them.
>AGI is going to sneak up on everybody incrementally, and intelligent people will still be arguing about whether it's possible, even while it happens.
*nods head
My alma mater ^_^. The basic loop is : http://monad.ai/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/dev_framework.png You can alter the environmental context easily by re-directing the wire in/out : http://monad.ai/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/dev_context.png . An individual would be none the wiser. Sure we could be in a simulation. It's interesting to ponder on it. You'll begin forming answers when you dissect the different components,…
It's amazing how many people speak about AGI as if it's even a theoretically plausible thing. It's about as plausible and well substantiated as the Christian God. Which isn't to say it's impossible, but just that it's almost entirely an article of faith. There are a few anecdotes which maybe hint at its possibility. But nothing even approaching a rational explanation of how it might be built. Also, the model of cogni…
False dichotomy. As far as I'm remotely up-to-date on theoretical neuroscience both information processing and embodied cognition are correct. The brain processes the interoceptive and exteroceptive information received from the body, computes first- and second-order statistics, and uses those to emit actions that explore-and-exploit the body and environment (including the environment's capacity to process information or convenient structures in the environment that don't bear memorizing).
>The only reason to center the brain/environment interface is to try to separate what you consider to be the essential identity of a person from their physical grounding. I.e. to maintain a model which includes a soul.
Sure. If you want a complete description of a person, at minimum you need their whole body, including but not limited to their brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how many people speak about AGI as if it's even a theoretically plausible thing. It's about as plausible and well substantiated as the Christian God. Which isn't to say it's impossible, but just that it's almost entirely an article of faith. There are a few anecdotes which maybe hint at its possibility. But nothing even approaching a rational explanation of how it might be built. Also, the model of cogni…
At this point, it seems there is no manner of detailing that will convince people that it's plausible. I'm honestly unaware as to why people can't fathom it. It's a systems issue. If you want to resolve a systems issue, you need people who have worked on complex systems. Having done the research myself, having the computational models in front of me, and currently developing iterative capability levels, I can assure…
>There are few who want to start from scratch and build up models. Many are ripping models from work done in the 60's,70's, and 80's without a second thought as to what was the thinking behind them. I chose an alternative path. It's paying off.
What does your "alternative path" have to say about visual categorization/object recognition? Do you have ImageNet results?
>You see a box. I see a relationship. There are no broad boxes over anything I am developing. The diagram was made in simple reduced form to help one conceive of the ties and flows to and from the world. People sing high praise of OpenAI and OpenAI gym. I experimented with similar open source packages when attempting to create a virtual environment for testing my code. I resolved on different packages and developed my own gym. I needed more access to the core/gut functions. From what I can tell, there are several other groups/companies/individuals that have done the same. No mention of them ever. No praise. Which is fine but it just goes to show you how there are likely numerous groups making headwinds in this area that no one has ever heard of.
Can your "alternative path" play Atari games? How about Nintendo games? Can it complete Link to the Past for the Super Nintendo, as I could at age seven?
My main problem with the simulated world argument is complexity. Take the Billiard Ball example[0]. This means to accurately simulate the universe you can't really get away with approximations. Under close enough scrutiny discrepancies in the simulation are discernible, and we can scrutinize it at the subatomic level. But to simulate the observable universe, how big would your computer need to be? How slowly would th…
Here's a thought that ends up with exactly the opposite view... Does someone really need to build a computer that carries out the simulation for a universe to be “real”? If there is a set of rules defining a universe, one can say that the universe already exists without having to simulate it. The same goes for universes that are capable of life that can simulate other universes nested inside them. And, indeed, univer…
Marvin Minsky made this argument and it's a compelling one. But rather than meaning all universes are simulated, it means it doesn't matter whether they are or not because for all possible universes they will exist as root universes and as simulations within more complex universes and there's no meaningful distinction between those. It's not the argument I'm making though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that isn't simonh's point. Those simulations aren't very good. There's nobody living in those simulations that thinks that they're alive, let alone that is capable of creating a working computer out of the material in that simulation.
Right, and the Billiard Ball Example shows what you need to do to even just simulate a game of billiards. To do so accurately you have to simulate every elementary particle in the observable universe. That's how complex and interconnected the universe is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and the Billiard Ball Example shows what you need to do to even just simulate a game of billiards. To do so accurately you have to simulate every elementary particle in the observable universe. That's how complex and interconnected the universe is.
Arguing that present technology is insufficient doesn't prove that all future technology would be insufficient. The trajectory of improvement rather suggests the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how many people speak about AGI as if it's even a theoretically plausible thing. It's about as plausible and well substantiated as the Christian God. Which isn't to say it's impossible, but just that it's almost entirely an article of faith. There are a few anecdotes which maybe hint at its possibility. But nothing even approaching a rational explanation of how it might be built. Also, the model of cogni…
If you figure humans have general intelligence and are built out of regular matter it would seem theoretically plausible for us to build something else that has general intelligence out of regular matter. I think you may be overcomplicating things.
I don't see how that follows. Seems totally speculative to me.
If you mean possible in the "I can imagine it" sense then of course it's possible. So is a zombie apocalypse. Is it possible in the "there are models which predict it as a possibility"? Not to my knowledge.
The only such theoretical model I've seen is "processing power is increasing eventually, therefore computers will be able to do anything soon, including AGI" but that's a totally flawed model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how many people speak about AGI as if it's even a theoretically plausible thing. It's about as plausible and well substantiated as the Christian God. Which isn't to say it's impossible, but just that it's almost entirely an article of faith. There are a few anecdotes which maybe hint at its possibility. But nothing even approaching a rational explanation of how it might be built. Also, the model of cogni…
I fail to see what bearing paragraphs 3-6 have on the possibility or probability of AGI. AGI beliefs don't compare to religious beliefs just because you say so. You simply don't have the same knowledge background as people who think AGI is realistic or even likely. Maybe you have more or better knowledge, or maybe they do... but just saying they're wrong is pointless. The boundary for systems-level consideration of i…
That's ad hominem. But if you need to know my credentials to be able to take me seriously, I have a computer science degree and studied Cognitive Science at one of the top cogsci PhD programs in the U.S. (didn't finish). I have been a professional programmer for 20 years, in between school.
My point is that, like God, unless you can explain how it might work, you don't have a scientifically workable theoretical model.