headers
Alan Grimes | 1 Oct 2000 23:55
Favicon

om....

For hackers, you d00dz are very verbose. =P

Are you just playing a game of "who can come up with the coolest sounding
idea" or actually trying to write and publish a piece of softwarez?

--

-- 
In this year's presidential race you *do* have a choice!
VOTE Browne/Olivier The ticket to freedom!
http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/  <my website.

####### Begin Eschelon Block #######
unibomber anthrax plutonium militia delta force ruby ridge atf batf waco
oklahoma city assault rifle randy weaver sog sof oliver north vince
foster m-16 hillary clinton bill clinton marx crack m-60 c5 c7 mlk black
panthers fbi chemical weapons twa 800 roswell white slavery history of us
foreign policy terrorist freedom
####### End   Eschelon Block #######
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
youlian troyanov | 5 Oct 2000 02:52

this looks intersting..

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Nuprl/PRLSeminar%5Cannounce.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lynn H. Maxson | 16 Oct 2000 04:28

RE: Emergence of behavior through software

Billy (btanksley), Alik Widge, and I have discussed to some length 
the subject of AI, "true" AI, the AI of Fare, not limited to the 
rule-base of current logic engines and neural networks.  From my 
perspective we have two basic questions. One, is "true" AI 
possible with software (following Turing computational rules) and 
a host computer (following von Neumann Architecture)?  Two, if 
possible, is it worth achieving?

Basically my answer to both questions is "no": one, it is not 
possible, and, two, even if it were, we would not like 
consequences of achieving it.  Alik tends to regard (or at least 
willing to take the chance that) "true" AI will result in a 
benign, cooperative peer.  In my view "true" AI will look at our 
history, observe current events, witness the ecological damage we 
are doing to this planet, and decide that we are the greatest 
threat to its survival.  Its answer will be, if not to eliminate 
us entirely (make us as extinct as the species we do so daily), 
reduce our population to where we no longer present a danger to 
ourselves as well as to others.  I feel this a "logical 
conclusion" that "true AI" will reach as easily as have many of 
us.  In short "true" AI represents a greater threat to our 
survival than ever did the atomic bomb or nuclear warfare, because 
there at least a human finger interested in his own survival was 
on the trigger.

I don't worry about such scenarios when attempts to produce "true" 
AI consider using software following Turing rules and a von 
Neumann-based computer.  Never happen.  Not only is the brain not 
a computer, but a computer has no ability to become a brain with 
or without software.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Alan Grimes | 16 Oct 2000 05:34
Favicon

Re: Emergence of behavior through software

> From my perspective we have two basic questions. One, is "true" AI
> possible with software (following Turing computational rules) and
> a host computer (following von Neumann Architecture)?

I am approaching agreement with the Lynn, No.
Over the next few weeks I will post a series of questions to this list
regarding things I am studying to assist me in my understanding and
eventually present an argument that will support it more solidly than the
somewhat emotional and hand-waving claims that Lynn made.
After that I will take over the project and start off in a new direction to
build the machine that will most elegantly and effectively complement the
natural intelligence that we all have been granted, and lay a solid
foundation for future technologies such as neural interfaces that will
allow the brain to use the computer as easily as I move my fingers across
this keyboard. =)

My comment to Fare is that I recognise his role in founding this project
but as yet no code has been published, even in beta and in this game Code
is all that counts. Please notify me if you decide to b00t me for my
aditude in this post. 

> Two, if possible, is it worth achieving?

Yes! I want to make it so.

--

-- 
In this year's presidential race you *do* have a choice!
VOTE Browne/Olivier The ticket to freedom!
http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/  <my website.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Francois-Rene Rideau | 16 Oct 2000 14:54
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Emergence of behavior through software

Dear Lynn,
   I had moved this discussion to cybernethics <at> tunes.org, for a reason.
I don't want it to return on tunes <at> tunes.org. If you want to continue it,
please continue it on cybernethics <at> * (but then again, it looks like
we have such disagreements on the discussion method, that
continueing discussion itself is pointless at the time being).

A much better topic to discuss is that of development methodology,
that you rightly pointed were unjustly undiscussed on the Tunes pages,
but that I nonetheless do believe is essential.
I believe that use of reflective systems involves particular methods
so as to make the most out of the reflective capabilities,
wherein the interaction between base-level programming
and meta-level programming happens in a very short loop,
and wherein persistent meta-data is accumulated by the system
in a controlled but not designed way.

Discussion of what methods could or should be used,
particularly if they lead to code appearing sooner,
and being of better quality, are most welcome on this list.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
[  TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System  | http://tunes.org  ]
No matter what language you use, a Cunning Compiler(TM) will be able to find
an efficient implementation for whatever apparently difficult problem you
specify. However, a Cunning Compiler(TM) is itself an AI-complete problem.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
btanksley | 16 Oct 2000 20:04

RE: Emergence of behavior through software

From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:fare <at> tunes.org]

>Dear Lynn,
>   I had moved this discussion to cybernethics <at> tunes.org, for a reason.

What was that reason?  I object to the move:

1. I don't believe cyber-ethics exists as a seperate study from ethics.  I
won't discuss that on this list, though; that belongs on the other list.
:-)  Plus, I hate the prefix 'cyber'.
2. We're not discussing whether it's moral or right to form an AI; we're
discussing whether it's possible and reasonable.  After we decide whether
it's possible it will be reasonable (and vitally important) to discuss
whether it's ethical and moral: in other words, whether we 'should' do it.
3. We're not discussing an issue unrelated to Tunes; we're arguing about
something that you've just revealed to be the core of Tunes itself.  If we
can't make AI, then we can't realise your vision of Tunes.  I didn't know
this before, although I've have vague suspicions.

Please clarify, Fare'.  I don't understand why you're doing this.

>[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | 

-Billy
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Francois-Rene Rideau | 17 Oct 2000 00:34
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Emergence of behavior through software

On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 11:04:34AM -0700, btanksley <at> hifn.com wrote:
>> I had moved this discussion to cybernethics <at> tunes.org, for a reason.
> What was that reason?
Topic.

> I object to the move:
> 1. I don't believe cyber-ethics exists as a seperate study from ethics.
Neither do I. The name of the list is originally a voluntary broken
spelling for "cybernetics", that allowed me to insist on my tendency
to see strong relationship between ethics and cybernetics.
Actually, it was Tril who first remarked to me that it could be seen as
a prefixed expression "cyber'n'ethics".
Anyway. You mightn't like the name of the list, it doesn't change the fact
that some discussions are on-topic on one list and off-topic on the other.

> I won't discuss that on this list, though; that belongs on the other list.
> :-)
I suppose that by "that", you mean this meta-discussion
about lists, their names and and topics. Maybe we should create a
	discussion-about-mailing-lists <at> tunes.org

> Plus, I hate the prefix 'cyber'.
So do I. See above.

> 2. We're not discussing whether it's moral or right to form an AI; we're
> discussing whether it's possible and reasonable.
I consider that in comparison to AI's vapourness, even Tunes is rock solid,
so that it deserves discussion in a separate forum.

> After we decide whether
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lynn H. Maxson | 17 Oct 2000 00:59

Re: Emergence of behavior through software

Alan Grimes wrote:
"...After that I will take over the project and start off in a new 
direction to build the machine that will most elegantly and 
effectively complement the natural intelligence that we all have 
been granted, and lay a solid foundation for future technologies 
such as neural interfaces that will allow the brain to use the 
computer as easily as I move my fingers across this keyboard."

I will do my best to suppress the emotion and hand-waving in this 
response.  I do question why you would believe that you need 
"true" AI and not just the "regular stuff" to achieve the same 
ends.  There is a difference between complement, supplement, and 
replacement.  You are talking of a development of an enhanced 
tool.  I'm in favor of that.  I know nothing in rule-based 
software systems, the only kind there is currently, that stands as 
a barrier, a stopper, to such an effort.

To the best of my knowledge you use the brain in moving your 
fingers over the keyboard now.  In truth you have what you want 
now.:-)
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alan Grimes | 17 Oct 2000 02:15
Favicon

Re: Emergence of behavior through software

Lynn H. Maxson wrote:

> I know nothing in rule-based
> software systems, the only kind there is currently, that stands as
> a barrier, a stopper, to such an effort.

There are also many software systems for which the rules are only a
substrate for more interesting behaviors. Take for example Neural networks
which often operate on fractional numbers and appear to be similar in
fuzzyness to the brain. While such work is still in its infancy it is still
not fair to say that today's computers are utterly incapable of
non-symbolic operations. Wheather they are sufficiently powerfull has been
assumed to be true but it takes only one example to prove that the turing
machine and the lambda calculus to be non-universal. Some such examples
exist but currently it is thought that they lie completely beyond any
machine, including the brain. 

> To the best of my knowledge you use the brain in moving your
> fingers over the keyboard now.  In truth you have what you want
> now.:-)

Yes but what if we were to go a step further. Lets look at the problem of
filesystem managment as a good baseline. As of today the only method I have
of effecting modifications to it is to generate strings of symbols either
with my keyboard or with my mouse. What if it were possible to directly
interface the brain to it? What I mean is instead of feeding it strings, it
could be formed as an abstraction within my mind in such a way that by
effecting changes on the immage in my head I could do such tasks directly
without having to generate any strings? What if, beyond that, it were
possible to bridge the "cybernetic gap" as I call it further to the point
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lynn H. Maxson | 17 Oct 2000 22:18

RE: Emergence of behavior through software

I've been sort of desparate in finding some common ground with 
Billy (btanksley).  Fortunately I have found some thanks to Fare 
and the subject about which mailing list to which this belongs.

In my mind there are three questions actually.  One, is "true" AI 
(as opposed to current rule-based) necessary (and sufficient) to 
achieve Tunes' goals?  Two, if yes, then is "true" AI possible?  
And, three, if yes, is "true" AI desirable?

IMHO the answer to all three questions is "no" or (no, no, no).<g>  
I agree with Billy that the first two provide grist for the mill 
of discussion on this mailing list, while the third, desirable?, 
as Fare suggests belongs under some ethics category.  If the 
answer to the first question, necessary?, then only the curious 
will need explore the others.

Fare wrote:

"Tunes' goal is not, has never been, and will never be to make an 
AI.  It is to provide a reflective infrastructure whence more 
complex computional behavior can emerge than has ever emerged 
before."

If I understand this correctly, Fare has also responded with a 
"no" to the first question.  Thus his "reflective infrastructure" 
will be "rule-based" on the same rules of logic inherent in all 
software and host computers.  These should prove to be both 
necessary and sufficient to meet the tests of such systems.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane